Weber v. Weber
2011 Ohio 2980
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Lesa Weber obtained domestic violence protective orders against David Weber in 1999; that order expired in 2004.
- David and Lesa, divorced since 1991, had a judgment against Lesa from a 2005 dispute over borrowed money.
- In May 2010, David sent Lesa a non-threatening letter seeking address information and possible reconciliation, prompting Lesa to petition for a new DV protective order.
- A magistrate entered an ex parte petition, and a full hearing occurred on May 28, 2010, with both parties appearing pro se.
- Lesa testified about fear and past violence, but admitted no contact from David since 1999 until the letter; she claimed ongoing fear.
- The trial court granted a five-year DV protection order with an exception allowing pursuit of the judgment through normal channels; David appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was competent evidence of present danger | Weber | Weber | Order reversed for lack of present danger evidence |
| Whether the court properly weighed credibility | Weber | Weber | Court erred in crediting past acts as establishing current risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Thomas, 44 Ohio App.3d 6 (1988) (evaluate present danger; prior acts insufficient alone)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807 (2004) (cannot rely solely on prior incidents; must show act on petition date)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (preponderance standard for DV protection orders)
- Gaydash v. Gaydash, 168 Ohio App.3d 418 (2006) (scope and standard for DV protection order review)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 180 Ohio App.3d 260 (2008) (distinguishes abuse-of-discretion review vs. sufficiency review)