Mota v. Mota
382 P.3d 1080
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In June 2012 Jennifer obtained an ex parte temporary protective order after Lawrence pointed a handgun at her and the parties’ youngest child and threatened to kill Jennifer if she called 911; a permanent protective order issued after Lawrence failed to appear at the June 27, 2012 hearing.
- Over the next two years Lawrence made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to obtain dismissal of the order and did not appeal the original orders denying relief.
- In August 2014 Lawrence sought dismissal under Utah Code § 78B-7-115(1) (allowing dismissal of a protective order in effect at least two years if the petitioner no longer has a reasonable fear of future abuse).
- A district court commissioner recommended leaving the protective order in place, relying principally on the egregiousness of the underlying gun incident under subsection (f) ("any other factors the court considers relevant"). Lawrence did not object to the recommendation but timely appealed after the judge signed the amended protective order.
- The district court adopted the commissioner’s findings; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion and the commissioner’s factual findings for clear error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawrence) | Defendant's Argument (Jennifer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subsection (f) of § 78B-7-115 permits consideration of pre-order conduct (e.g., the gun incident) when deciding dismissal | Subsection (f) should be limited; only post-order conduct should govern dismissal so compliance with (a)-(e) effectively leads to dismissal | Subsection (f) permits courts to consider any relevant factors, including the severity of prior abuse, in assessing whether a reasonable fear remains | Court held (f) may include prior conduct; commissioner permissibly considered the egregious pre-order gun incident as relevant |
| Whether commissioner erred by not finding petitioner’s subjective fear | Lawrence: commissioner failed to find Jennifer’s subjective fear; decision lacked that specific finding | Jennifer: record supports a reasonable fear based on the gun threat; commissioner’s reasoning shows fear was found reasonable | Held: commissioner implicitly and adequately found the fear reasonable; court did not err |
| Whether failure to object to the commissioner’s recommendation waived issues on appeal | Lawrence: rule 108 objection is optional and not prerequisite to appeal | Jennifer: failure to object limits ability to challenge factual bases because no evidentiary hearing before judge was sought | Held: Rule 108 objections optional; but failure to object limited Lawrence’s ability to challenge factual findings—court will not consider unpreserved factual attacks |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in denying dismissal under § 78B-7-115 | Lawrence: compliance with (a)-(e) should require dismissal; court’s refusal was unreasonable | Jennifer: even if (a)-(e) were satisfied, (f) allows consideration of severity of past abuse and supports continuation | Held: No abuse of discretion; court properly weighed statutory factors and reasonably declined to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake County Board of Equalization, 270 P.3d 441 (Utah 2012) (statutory interpretation is reviewed for correctness)
- Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 232 P.3d 1059 (Utah 2010) (standard for determining abuse of discretion)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence when factual basis exists)
- Burns v. Boyden, 133 P.3d 370 (Utah 2006) (court rules are interpreted according to plain language)
- Normandeau v. 215 P.3d 152 (Utah 2009) (issues must be timely and clearly presented below to be preserved on appeal)
- Bailey v. Bayles, 52 P.3d 1158 (Utah 2002) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings in protective order contexts)