Krzystan v. Bauer
2017 Ohio 858
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Amanda Krzystan (petitioner) rented a commercial office on a month-to-month basis; Erik Bauer (respondent) bought the building in April 2015 and sought to terminate her tenancy.
- Negotiations over a written lease failed; Bauer’s counsel sent a letter stating Krzystan’s occupancy would terminate June 30, 2015 if June rent was paid by June 1.
- Krzystan alleged several incidents: being called a “bitch,” Bauer saying “you are going to get what you deserve” on July 1 when she returned to remove belongings, and an alleged July 2 comment to a neighbor about making her life “hell.”
- Krzystan filed for a civil stalking protection order (CSPO); the trial court issued an ex parte CSPO and, after a hearing, continued it until December 31, 2016.
- Bauer appealed, arguing the evidence did not support a finding of a knowing pattern of conduct sufficient to establish menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211; the Sixth District applied a manifest-weight standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bauer engaged in a "pattern of conduct" causing Krzystan to believe he would cause physical harm or mental distress (R.C. 2903.211) | Krzystan relied on multiple incidents and statements (name-calling, veiled threats, alleged property tampering, towing incident, thermostat/key claims) to show a pattern | Bauer argued the reported acts were isolated, unproven, hearsay, or not threatening enough to establish a pattern or that he acted knowingly | Court held evidence showed at most one direct threatening incident; many claims were unproven/hearsay; no competent, credible evidence of the required pattern — CSPO vacated |
| Whether isolated rude or ambiguous statements can, by themselves, support a CSPO | Krzystan treated statements and surrounding conduct cumulatively as intimidating | Bauer argued name-calling and veiled remarks without corroborating threatening conduct cannot support menacing by stalking | Held that insults and ambiguous remarks (e.g., "bitch," "you are going to get what you deserve") without contextual threatening conduct do not satisfy statute |
| Whether uncorroborated allegations of property tampering and third‑party reports can support the order | Krzystan asserted incidents like thermostat set to 95°, broken key, towing of parents as part of hostile pattern | Bauer pointed out lack of proof tying him to those incidents and that towing was done by his wife | Court refused to credit unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay; they do not establish the required pattern |
| Proper standard of appellate review for CSPOs | Krzystan implicitly relied on trial-court credibility findings | Bauer urged abuse-of-discretion standard; Sixth Dist. applies manifest-weight review | Court applied manifest-weight standard and reversed because the judgment lacked competent, credible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (articulates standard that judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence on all essential elements will not be reversed)