Varner, T. v. Varner, D.
2113 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Wife (Teresa Dunn, formerly Varner) filed a PFA petition against Husband (Donald Varner) on Sept. 12, 2016 alleging a course of abusive conduct including threats, following, and firearm intimidation.
- Hearing held Nov. 23, 2016 with testimony from Wife, Husband, and their adult daughter; events described spanned decades but recent incidents included a July 2016 harassment conviction (Husband pleaded guilty), a July display of a Glock, and an Aug. 21, 2016 text/photo showing Wife’s temporary residence.
- Wife sought a 2–3 year PFA and relinquishment of Husband’s firearms; Husband denied intent to threaten and explained firearm handling practices and possession of a gun safe.
- Trial court found many alleged abuses dated to early in the 35-year marriage and had “lost their vitality,” credited Husband’s testimony over Wife’s, and concluded Wife failed to prove she was placed in reasonable fear by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Trial court admitted a single lay-reference by Wife to a bipolar diagnosis for limited credibility purposes; Wife objected and later argued admission prejudiced her.
- Court of Superior of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of the PFA, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion on credibility, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established "abuse" under 23 Pa.C.S. §6102(a)(2) and (a)(5) (reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury / course of conduct) | Wife: Husband’s threats, following, harassment conviction, and repeated firearm intimidation placed her in reasonable fear and established a course of conduct. | Husband: Incidents were either isolated, remote in time, or explained innocently; recent conduct did not create a reasonable fear. | Court: Affirmed denial — trial court’s credibility findings and discounting of remote events were permissible; Wife failed to prove abuse by preponderance. |
| Whether Wife’s fear was objectively reasonable given the totality of circumstances | Wife: The combination of conduct (texts/photos showing location, past harassment plea, firearm conduct) made her fear reasonable. | Husband: Language used was colloquial; Daughter corroborated benign explanation; no evidence of imminent harm. | Court: Held Wife’s fear not shown reasonable given credibility determinations and trial court’s weighing of circumstances. |
| Whether lay testimony by Wife about her bipolar diagnosis was admissible and, if admitted, prejudicial | Wife: Lay testimony of mental-health diagnosis is improper and prejudiced the court’s credibility assessment. | Husband: Diagnosis is relevant to credibility/state of mind and admissible for that limited purpose. | Court: Even if admission was error, no prejudice shown — single voluntary acknowledgement was not relied upon in court’s written reasons; affirmation of trial court discretion. |
| Whether appellate court may overturn trial court credibility findings | Wife: Trial court erred by not crediting her testimony. | Husband: Appellate court must defer to trial court’s credibility determinations. | Court: Affirmed deference — appellate court will not reweigh credibility; no abuse of discretion found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (example of facts supporting reasonable fear where estranged husband entered home at night with knife).
- Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (example of sufficient evidence for PFA where course of conduct included threats, following, and firearm intimidation).
- Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (describing PFA objective: protect victims and focus on whether victim is in reasonable fear).
- T.K. v. A.Z., 157 A.3d 974 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review: trial court PFA grant/denial reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (reversal where erroneous lay evidence of diagnosis caused prejudice).
- In re Involuntary Commitment of Barbour, 733 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (erroneous lay testimony about bipolar diagnosis prejudiced involuntary-commitment finding).