R.C. v. J.G.
2013 Ohio 4265
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- R.C. and J.G. ended their relationship in 2008; J.G. continued contact through 2009 and 2010 related to their business interests.
- R.C. filed a prior domestic violence protection petition in 2009 and later withdrew it.
- In 2012, J.G. allegedly visited R.C.’s place of business to meet a friend, which coworkers reported to R.C.
- R.C. sought a civil protection order; the Medina County Court of Common Pleas granted it based on a pattern of conduct.
- J.G. appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the scope of the protection order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a pattern of conduct causing fear of harm | R.C. showed a pattern of conduct by J.G. | J.G. contends evidence is insufficient | Yes; sufficient preponderance supported a protection order. |
| Whether the protection order’s scope improperly restricts J.G.’s shareholder rights | Order overly broad; hampers business participation | Court properly tailored terms to circumstances | Not an abuse of discretion; order within statutory discretion. |
| Whether the trial court must expressly find no error on the order’s face | Requires explicit finding of no facial defects | Explicit finding not required under Civ.R. 65.1 | No express finding required; review consistent with Civ.R. 65.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency and weight standards in criminal/civil context)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012-Ohio-2179) (sufficiency and weight distinction in civil cases)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (protective order burden requires preponderance)