Rupp v. Rupp
2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 144
Ky. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rupp and Teresa Tweed were married 14 years; marriage dissolved in 2003.
- Teresa petitioned for and obtained a domestic violence order (DVO) against Daniel in 2004.
- DVO amended in 2005, reissued in 2007, amended in 2010, and extended through Dec 2010.
- In Oct–Dec 2010 a two-day hearing occurred; the court reissued the DVO through Dec 19, 2013.
- Daniel appeals, arguing insufficient evidence to support continued DVO.
- Court found past violations, fear of imminent harm, and ongoing need for protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to continue the DVO? | Rupp argues evidence supports continued protection. | Rupp contends the record lacks proof of ongoing risk. | Yes; evidence showed past violence and continued fear, justifying reissuance. |
| May a DVO be reissued without new acts of violence? | Teresa's history and fear warrant continued protection. | No additional acts are required beyond risk to justify reissuance. | Court may reissue without new acts; continued protection warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingrey v. Whitlow, 150 S.W.3d 67 (Ky.App.2004) (DVOs may be extended even without new acts; protection is a factor)
- Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49 (Ky.App.2005) (DVOs have significant protective impact; proper deliberation required)
- Baird v. Baird, 234 S.W.3d 385 (Ky.App.2007) (continued need shown without necessarily proving new violence)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2003) (substantial evidence standard for credibility and findings)
- Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky.1986) (clear error standard; deference to trial court on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 934 S.W.2d 276 (Ky.1996) (preponderance of the evidence standard for DVOs)