Lundin v. Niepsuj
2017 Ohio 7153
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellee Barbara Lundin obtained a domestic violence civil protection order (CPO) against Vincent Niepsuj in 2011; the CPO was set to expire April 13, 2016 and had been previously affirmed on appeal.
- Shortly before expiration, Lundin filed a motion (styled to modify) seeking a five‑year extension/renewal based on the case history and alleged past violations.
- A March 30, 2016 hearing was held; both parties appeared pro se. Lundin testified generally about past violations, embarrassment to their son (T.N.), and fear of emotional and physical harm but gave no specific, recent dates or concrete imminent threats.
- The trial court granted the requested extension/renewal and issued a modified CPO effective to March 30, 2021 with broad stay‑away, no‑contact, and other provisions (including alcohol/drug prohibition and school exclusion).
- Niepsuj filed a Civ.R. 52 request; the trial court later issued brief findings. On appeal, the Ninth District vacated the trial court’s renewal and entered judgment for Niepsuj, finding the five‑year renewal was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court permissibly renewed the CPO for five years | Lundin argued renewal was warranted based on the history of the case and past violations and her testimony that she and her son feared harm | Niepsuj argued Lundin failed to prove recent or imminent serious physical harm or that statutory elements for renewal were met | Held: Renewal was an abuse of discretion; evidence did not show imminent serious physical harm or sufficient post‑issuance incidents to support a new five‑year CPO |
| Whether the trial court’s findings satisfied R.C. 3113.31 requirements for renewal | Lundin relied on her subjective fear testimony at hearing | Niepsuj argued the court needed objective, preponderant evidence of domestic violence or imminent threat, not mere past events or embarrassment | Held: Court applied an impermissibly subjective test; it failed to find facts showing the statutory definitions (imminent, serious physical harm) by a preponderance |
| Validity of ancillary CPO provisions (alcohol/drug prohibition; school exclusion) | Lundin implicitly supported the CPO terms as protective necessities | Niepsuj challenged the scope as unsupported by evidence and an abuse of discretion | Held: Court reversed entire renewal as against manifest weight; therefore challenges to specific provisions were rendered moot |
| Correct procedural characterization (modify vs. renew) and required standard | Lundin filed a motion to modify but sought extension/renewal | Niepsuj argued renewal requires the same process and proof as an original order (new finding of domestic violence) | Held: Court treated the action as a renewal and held renewal requires new findings consistent with R.C. 3113.31 and case law; such findings were lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (CPO may be renewed at end of effective period; renewal treated like issuance of new order)
- Walker v. Doup, 36 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 1988) (timely Civ.R. 52 motion for findings tolls appellate time; appeal treated as timely after trial court’s findings)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest weight of the evidence in civil cases; appellate deference to finder of fact but reversal when the factfinder clearly lost its way)