RHODES v. HERNANDEZ
488 P.3d 762
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2020Background
- On Oct. 2, 2018, Billy Rhodes filed a protective-order petition alleging repeated physical assaults and harassment by co-worker Cornellio Hernandez.
- A temporary and then a final protective order (five years, 100-yard restriction) was entered after an Oct. 16, 2018 hearing; the docket states the order was "by agreement and without objection from the defendant."
- Rhodes had checked the "harassment" box on the standard form; the protective order was ultimately entered for stalking-related conduct.
- Over three months later Hernandez (now with counsel) moved to vacate, arguing the wrong box was checked so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and violated due process by failing to give notice of a stalking claim.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate; Hernandez appealed.
- There is no transcript or narrative statement of the hearing; the court relied on the docket entry and statutory/constitutional principles in affirming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether checking "harassment" instead of "stalking" deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction or constitutional notice | Rhodes: petition and facts supported relief; form-box error not jurisdictional; court had notice | Hernandez: wrong box meant no viable statutory stalking claim and thus no SMJ or due-process notice | Court: No jurisdictional defect; Oklahoma courts are courts of general jurisdiction and the form error did not oust SMJ; due process satisfied in context (and docket shows agreement) |
| Effect of defendant's apparent agreement at hearing on objections to process | Rhodes: defendant's agreement/absence of objection waived procedural defenses | Hernandez: SMJ cannot be waived; still can be raised despite agreement | Court: Many defenses can be waived; SMJ remains nonwaivable but was present here; docket showing agreement undercuts procedural challenge |
| Whether Baker v. Baker imposes strict pleading/checkbox requirements for protective orders | Rhodes: Baker limited to its facts (no petition filed by father) and does not create strict pleading rules; courts may conform pleadings to evidence | Hernandez: Baker requires specific procedures/box checked to give notice and jurisdiction | Court: Rejects broad reading of Baker; Baker involved sua sponte creation of a claim and is not authority for rigid checkbox jurisdictional rules; Oklahoma follows notice-pleading principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Protection from Domestic Abuse Act review and de novo review for statutory construction)
- Bebout v. Ewell, 392 P.3d 699 (Okla. 2017) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform parties of pending action and critical stages)
- Baker v. Baker, 904 P.2d 616 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (discussed limits on issuing protective orders where a party filed no petition; court here declines broad application)
- Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 875 P.2d 447 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (filing a petition is a statutory prerequisite for court jurisdiction over a protective order; cited for narrow proposition)
- Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2003) (articulates that notice must allow meaningful opportunity to appear and contest issues)