Meyer v. Aposhian
369 P.3d 1284
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Natalie Meyer (petitioner) sought a domestic protective order against ex-husband Winton Aposhian based on a series of interactions dating to 2008, culminating in a May 2013 incident where Aposhian drove a large military-style truck into her neighborhood and backed into her driveway.
- Meyer testified she and her daughter were frightened; her husband testified Meyer and their daughter were "shaken and scared." Meyer’s husband later reported receiving violent threats from Aposhian after confronting him.
- Police responded to the driveway incident, found Aposhian agitated, discovered he was armed, and arrested him for trespass. Meyer's husband obtained a civil stalking injunction against Aposhian in a separate proceeding.
- The district court denied Meyer’s petition under the Cohabitant Abuse Act, finding Meyer had not been subjected to abuse or domestic violence and that there was no substantial likelihood of abuse; the court credited Aposhian’s testimony and found Meyer’s claimed emotional distress not significant under the stalking statute.
- Meyer appealed, arguing the court erred in (1) assessing reasonable fear, (2) failing to consider her fear for her husband, (3) applying the wrong emotional-distress standard, and (4) denying attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meyer proved she was a cohabitant subjected to abuse or there was a substantial likelihood of abuse under the Cohabitant Abuse Act | Meyer: Aposhian’s conduct (truck incident, presence at courts, threats to husband) would cause a reasonable person in her circumstances to fear or suffer significant emotional distress | Aposhian: His actions were innocent or explainable; no physical threats or pattern rising to stalking or abuse | Court: Affirmed denial — district court’s factual credibility findings were not clearly erroneous and no substantial likelihood of abuse shown |
| Whether Meyer’s fear for a third person (her husband) supports a protective order | Meyer: Statute allows fear for a third person; her fear for husband should count | Aposhian: (Implicit) Prior civil stalking injunction and facts weigh against finding reasonable fear | Court: Statute permits fear for a third person, but court properly considered husband’s existing stalking injunction and concluded a reasonable person would not fear for him given the circumstances |
| Whether the district court misapplied the “reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances” standard | Meyer: Court failed to apply the individualized objective standard and treated her fear too subjectively | Aposhian: (Implicit) Court applied the correct context-specific reasonable-person standard | Court: No error — court considered totality and applied the reasonable-person-in-victim’s-circumstances standard correctly |
| Whether the district court applied an incorrect emotional-distress standard (requiring "outrageous" conduct) | Meyer: Court improperly required outrageous conduct; statute requires only significant emotional distress, not tort-level outrage | Aposhian: (Implicit) Even under correct standard, Meyer did not show significant emotional distress | Court: Argument not preserved below; court declined to review. Even if preserved, the factual findings would defeat relief; appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Rupper, 318 P.3d 1218 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for protective-order appeals; deference to trial court factual findings)
- Bailey v. Bayles, 52 P.3d 1158 (Utah 2002) (deference to trial court on factual matters)
- Zappe v. Bullock, 338 P.3d 242 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (clear-error review of trial findings)
- Patole v. Marksberry, 329 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (elements for relief under the Cohabitant Abuse Act)
- Baird v. Baird, 322 P.3d 728 (Utah 2014) (stalking statute: reasonable person is one in the victim’s circumstances; emotional-distress standard clarified)
- Kidd v. Kidd, 321 P.3d 200 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial judge’s unique role in assessing witness credibility)
- M.K. v. Doyle, 330 P.3d 1278 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (courts’ experience with domestic violence evidence and credibility)
- Butters v. Herbert, 291 P.3d 826 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (evaluate course of conduct in context, not in isolation)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation is reviewed for correctness)
- Donjuan v. McDermott, 266 P.3d 839 (Utah 2011) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- Hale v. Big H Constr., Inc., 288 P.3d 1046 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (appellate courts generally decline issues not preserved)
- Olsen v. Lund, 246 P.3d 521 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (attorney fees on appeal limited to prevailing party)
- Wohnoutka v. Kelley, 330 P.3d 762 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court will not scour record to supply missing preservation points)