Lundin v. Niepsuj
2014 Ohio 1212
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Barbara Lundin (petitioner) sought a domestic violence civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31; an ex parte TPO was issued and a full hearing occurred April 13, 2011.
- The trial court issued a Form 10.01-I domestic violence protection order on June 2, 2011, restraining Vincent Niepsuj (respondent) from contacting Lundin and the parties’ three children through April 13, 2016.
- Niepsuj filed Civ.R. 60(B) relief and objections; appellate proceedings were stayed for the trial court to rule. On October 19, 2012 the trial court overruled objections and denied the 60(B) motion.
- Appellant appealed the June 2, 2011 order and the October 19, 2012 ruling; appellee did not file a brief.
- At the hearing, witnesses (petitioner, minister, youth leader) testified Niepsuj repeatedly contacted church personnel, counselors, teachers and others, sought information about petitioner and the children, attended counselor’s office uninvited, and explored locations the family frequented. Niepsuj admitted much conduct but characterized it as nonthreatening and “innocent.”
- The trial court found by a preponderance that Niepsuj engaged in a pattern of conduct knowingly causing mental distress to Lundin and the children (menacing by stalking/domestic violence) and entered the protective order; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lundin) | Defendant's Argument (Niepsuj) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the civil protection order was supported by sufficient evidence / whether finding that respondent knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct causing mental distress was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Lundin argued testimony showed a pattern of conduct (contacts, surveillance, unwanted presence) that caused her and the children mental distress and supported issuance of the order | Niepsuj argued his conduct was innocent, nonthreatening, done with good motive (to know about his children), and he could not have known it would cause mental distress | Court held the finding was not against the manifest weight: evidence supports that respondent knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct causing mental distress; protection order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (Ohio Supreme Court applying criminal manifest-weight standard to civil manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (definition of manifest-weight standard)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (petitioner must prove domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Hoyt v. Heindell, 191 Ohio App.3d 373 (2010) (trial court discretion to issue protection orders)
- Martin, State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (description of manifest injustice test)