Retterer v. Little
2012 Ohio 131
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Rory and Lorinda Retterer sought a CSPO against Michael Little after years of alleged verbal abuse and incidents on Maple Grove Road adjacent to Littles’ property.
- The court granted an ex parte order pending full hearing on April 27, 2011; a full hearing occurred May 10, 2011.
- Four named incidents were presented: (1) 2006 tree-trimming confrontation, (2) 2007 truck incident, (3) 2011 wedding reception confrontation, (4) 2011 dog barking threat, plus ongoing verbal abuse.
- The Littles testified Michael’s acts caused fear of physical harm and mental distress; Michael offered innocent explanations and conflicting accounts.
- The trial court found sufficient evidence to issue a four-year CSPO and ordered stay-away distances; the order language, however, conflicted with the court’s stated distance.
- This appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence and manifest weight as to both Rory and Lorinda, and seeks clarification of the order’s mandatory distance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a pattern of conduct under RC 2903.211(A)(1). | Retterers showed two or more related incidents. | Michael argues no pattern; some incidents were isolated. | Yes; pattern found based on multiple incidents and ongoing verbal abuse. |
| Whether Michael knew his conduct would cause fear of harm or distress. | Knowledge shown by recurrent conduct and responses. | Intent not required; contested credibility. | Yes; evidence supports knowledge of likely harm or distress. |
| Whether the Retterers believed Michael would harm them. | Testimony showed fear and altered lifestyle. | Belief disputed; defensive explanations offered. | Yes; beliefs supported by surveillance and fear from incidents. |
| Whether the CSPO as issued was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Record supports CSPO as properly tailored. | Evidence weak or conflicting. | Not against weight; CSPO affirmed (remanded to clarify distance). |
Key Cases Cited
- Warnecke v. Whitaker, 2011-Ohio-5442 (3d Dist. No. 12-11-03 (Ohio)) (CSPO proof requires pattern and knowledge to cause fear)
- Kramer v. Kramer, 2002-Ohio-4383 (3d Dist.) (preponderance standard for CSPO)
- Van Vorce v. Van Vorce, 2004-Ohio-5646 (3d Dist.) (abuse-of-discretion standard in CSPO review)
- Ellet v. Falk, 2010-Ohio-6219 (6th Dist.) (defines pattern of conduct; consideration of all circumstances)
- Middletown v. Jones, 2006-Ohio-3465 (12th Dist.) (contextual evaluation of pattern evidence)
- State v. Dario, 106 Ohio App.3d 232 (1st Dist.) (pattern of conduct timing; case-by-case analysis)