Peterson v. Butikofer
139 N.E.3d 519
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Peterson (wife) filed an ex parte petition for a civil protection order (CPO) in Franklin County, Ohio, after returning from Alaska; she alleged physical abuse in Alaska and subsequent threats/harassment by text and e-mail while she was in Ohio. She was four months pregnant when she filed.
- Court granted an ex parte CPO on April 19, 2018 and scheduled a full hearing for April 26, 2018. An order appointing Anchorage County Sheriff as special process server and an order to serve (which also referenced Anchorage Judicial Services) were issued; a return of personal service was filed indicating service on April 23, 2018.
- Husband (Butikofer) did not appear at the April 26 hearing; the trial court proceeded, held a full hearing on Peterson’s testimony, and issued a CPO the same day.
- Husband appealed, raising four assignments of error: defective out-of-state service, lack of in personam jurisdiction, denial of continuance (due process), and that the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court reviewed service rules (Civ.R. 4.1/4.3, Civ.R. 65.1), local rule Loc.Dom.R. 41, Ohio long-arm statute and due-process minimum contacts principles, and the evidentiary standard for CPOs (preponderance; fear must be reasonable).
Issues
| Issue | Peterson's Argument | Butikofer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was out-of-state service defective such that the full hearing was improper? | Service was properly directed to the Anchorage County Sheriff and returned as personal service. | Service was defective because the clerk referenced Anchorage Judicial Services and no special-process-server appointment complied with Civ.R.4.3 and Loc.Dom.R.41. | Court: Service was sufficient; no proof that any clerical inclusion undermined valid service and any deviation from local rule did not impair due process. |
| 2. Did Ohio have in personam jurisdiction over husband? | Husband had minimum contacts: prior physical abuse in Alaska, threats by texts/e-mails while Peterson was in Ohio, husband could travel to continental U.S., and Peterson reasonably feared imminent harm. | All relevant events occurred in Alaska; texts/calls alone (without content) are insufficient to establish long-arm contacts. | Court: Jurisdiction proper. Communications and past abuse supported that husband purposefully availed himself and created sufficient contacts to make jurisdiction reasonable. |
| 3. Was refusal to grant a continuance a denial of due process? | The hearing schedule and short notice from Alaska made it unreasonable to expect husband could appear or retain counsel; he contacted the court seeking continuance. | Husband failed to meet statutory continuance criteria, did not file a motion or show grounds under R.C.3113.31(D)(2)(a) or follow local continuance procedure. | Court: No abuse. Record lacks evidence showing valid grounds for continuance or compliance with local rule; brief notice alone and unrecorded phone calls did not require continuance. |
| 4. Was the CPO against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Husband contends alleged injuries were pre-existing and evidence of physical abuse/threats was ambiguous. | Peterson testified to specific incidents of pushing, threats, attempts to obtain her address, and fear given past violence and husband's resources; husband did not appear to rebut. | Court: CPO affirmed. Credible evidence supported a finding Peterson was in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Asahi Metal Ind. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (minimum-contacts/due-process principles governing personal jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (landmark standard for minimum contacts)
- Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (application of minimum-contacts test requires fact-specific analysis)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (purposeful availment requirement)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove danger of domestic violence by preponderance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (standard for appellate review of CPO findings)
- Conkle v. Wolfe, 131 Ohio App.3d 375 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (consideration of parties’ history in assessing reasonableness of fear)
- Eichenberger v. Eichenberger, 82 Ohio App.3d 809 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (threats constitute domestic violence when resulting fear is reasonable)