Williams v. Hupp
2011 Ohio 3403
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hupp appeals a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court domestic relations civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31 after a county fair incident.
- Petitioner Williams sought protection for herself and family (her mother, father, and M.H., Hupp's step-daughter).
- Ex-parte order issued the day of filing; a full hearing followed on Nov. 12, 2009.
- Witnesses Williams, Howell, and M.H. testified at the magistrate hearing; Williams described the September 6, 2009 confrontation and threats.
- The magistrate found Hupp threatened to kill Williams and that Williams had reason to fear; the trial court remanded for a finding on whether fear was reasonable.
- A second hearing heard Williams’ accounts of past domestic violence; the magistrate again issued a civil protection order, which the trial court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hupp threatened Williams with imminent physical harm | Williams argues Hupp threatened to kill her during the fair incident. | Hupp contends he did not threaten Williams; any statements were not a direct threat. | Yes; competent evidence shows a threat to kill Williams occurred. |
| Whether Williams reasonably feared imminent harm | Williams contends her fear was reasonable given past incidents and the current threat. | Hupp argues fear was unreasonable given past conduct and time elapsed. | Yes; the fear was reasonable considering past threats/violence and the September 6 incident. |
| Appropriate standard of review for existence of the order | N/A (appellate review of record evidence supporting protection order) | N/A (same) | Manifest weight review applies to existence of the order; abuse-of-discretion for scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807 (2004-Ohio-2486) (necessity of balancing subjective and objective fear elements)
- Eichenberger v. Eichenberger, 82 Ohio App.3d 809 (1992-Ohio-?) (considers past acts when determining reasonableness of fear)
- Martauz v. Martauz, 7th Dist. No. 08 MA 135, 2009-Ohio-2642 (2009-Ohio-2642) (past conduct relevant to reasonableness; credibility defers to trial court)
- Abuhamda-Sliman v. Sliman, 161 Ohio App.3d 541 (2005-Ohio-2836) (standard for reviewing existence vs. scope of order; discretion in scope of protection order)
- Young v. Young, 2006-Ohio-978 (2d Dist.) (discusses inconsistent standards; supports manifest-weight approach for existence of order)
- Rosine v. Rosine, 2010-Ohio-613 (7th Dist.) (discusses standard of review for civil protection orders)
- Murral v. Thomson, 4th Dist. No. 03CA8, 2004-Ohio-432 (2004-Ohio-432) (time recency of past conduct; discretion to find recent enough incidents supportive of fear)
- Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (2008-Ohio-4000) (past conduct and credibility considerations in evaluating fear and threats)