Martindale v. Martindale
102 N.E.3d 19
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lisa Martindale obtained an ex parte domestic violence CPO against Eric Martindale in 2013; proceedings proceeded through multiple hearings and jurisdictions (Ohio and Pennsylvania).
- A magistrate denied the full CPO in October 2014 and the trial court adopted that denial in December 2015 after finding credibility issues and lack of imminent danger evidence.
- In 2015 military proceedings produced a written stipulation (Joint Exhibit A) in which Eric admitted he "struck" Lisa once on July 6, 2013, causing a black eye while the children were in the home.
- Lisa moved for a new trial based on the military stipulation as newly discovered evidence; the trial court granted limited new-trial proceedings and, after a November 2016 hearing, issued a full CPO in January 2017 covering Lisa and the two older children.
- Eric appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in granting the CPO and (2) erred by naming the children as protected parties; the Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in issuing full CPO | Martindale argued the military stipulation corroborated prior claims and showed ongoing danger; petitioner fears recurrence | Martindale contended prior rulings showed events were remote, petitioner not credibly fearful, and new evidence didn’t change magistrate’s findings | Court affirmed: trial court could credit the military stipulation and find by preponderance that petitioner faced domestic violence risk |
| Whether children should be named protected parties | Children exposed to domestic violence and were present during July 6, 2013 incident — exposure constitutes domestic violence | Eric argued no evidence of direct harm to children at new trial and children had been removed from earlier proceedings | Court affirmed: given violent home history and Eric’s admission that children were present, court did not abuse discretion adding children |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (high threshold for finding a judgment against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (2014) (trial court best positioned to assess witness demeanor and credibility)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.3d 348 (1993) (purpose of Civ.R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law to assist appellate review)