2016 Ohio 7080
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- L.P. and M.J. lived together in 2009; after their romantic relationship ended they remained roommates and entered an "agreement" requiring M.J. to perform sexual acts for L.P. or pay a fine. M.J. sought a civil protection order (CPO) alleging coercion and threats; a five-year CPO for M.J. and her daughter was entered on October 15, 2009.
- L.P. appealed the original CPO; this Court affirmed because L.P. did not raise plain error. L.P. later filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion alleging newly discovered evidence; the motion was denied and that ruling was not appealed.
- In 2014 M.J. moved to extend the CPO, relying on (1) L.P.’s continued litigation (appeal and 60(B)), (2) L.P.’s $50,000 civil suit against M.J., and (3) fear that L.P. would resume stalking if the CPO lapsed.
- At the renewal hearing M.J. testified about emotional harm from repeated court proceedings and her fear if the CPO ended; she acknowledged L.P. had not disturbed her outside court hearings. L.P. testified he had not approached, stalked, or violated the CPO and had no intent to contact M.J.
- The trial court granted the extension. This Court considered two assignments of error; it found the sufficiency-of-evidence challenge dispositive and reversed, ordering vacatur of the extended CPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.J.) | Defendant's Argument (L.P.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to extend the domestic-violence CPO | M.J. argued continued fear from prior abuse, ongoing litigation and L.P.’s civil suit justified renewal | L.P. argued there were no new threats or incidents of contact outside court; no reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm | Reversed: insufficient evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm to support extension |
| Whether trial court erred in denying L.P.’s motion for directed verdict after M.J. rested | (implied) M.J. maintained her testimony supported renewal | L.P. argued M.J. failed to present sufficient evidence before he testified | Moot (court declined to address because reversal on sufficiency made it unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (criminal sufficiency-standard precedent applied)
- Studer v. Studer, 2012 Ohio App. (3d Dist.) (renewal requires evidence of present threats beyond past abuse)
- Woolum v. Woolum, 131 Ohio App.3d 818 (1999) (affirming renewal where past abuse coupled with present threat supported extension)
- Young v. Young, 2006 Ohio App. (2d Dist.) (old events insufficient to establish fear of imminent harm)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 180 Ohio App.3d 260 (2008) (distinguishing fear of potential future conduct from imminent physical conduct)
- Little v. Little, 2011 Ohio App. (10th Dist.) (R.C. 3113.31(E)(3)(c) requires renewal procedure like original issuance)
- Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (2008) (threats to bring civil litigation do not constitute domestic-violence threats)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807 (2004) (past acts alone are insufficient to warrant a present CPO)