Williams v. Williams
2013 UT App 111
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Clark Williams appeals a civil stalking injunction issued in favor of his ex-wife Jeri Williams; the court affirms.
- After separation in 2011, Jeri asked Clark to stop contacting her and to direct communications through her attorney for divorce matters.
- Jeri relocated and redacted her new address to keep Clark from knowing where she lived; a California no-contact order was issued in their pending divorce.
- Clark sent a photograph of Jeri’s new home in August 2011 and at least sixteen more emails between August and November 2011 directed at Jeri or their children.
- Clark also mailed two letters contrary to the California order, used Jeri’s social security number to bypass blocking on her phone, and showed up at her residence.
- The district court found two or more acts constituting stalking and considered the cumulative effect of the acts in granting the injunction; attorney fees on appeal were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two or more acts satisfy stalking elements | Williams contends multiple contacts prove stalking. | Williams argues the acts alone do not show stalking. | Two or more acts satisfied the statutory course of conduct requirement. |
| Whether outrageousness is required under the statute | Williams argues outrageousness is required for stalking. | Williams contends outrageousness is not necessary under current statute. | Outrageousness not required; conduct here would cause distress under any standard. |
| Whether the conduct was intentional or knowing and caused emotional distress | Clark argues contacts were not intentional/knowing and not distressing. | Jeri argues conduct was deliberate and caused significant distress. | Actions were intentional and knowing; cumulative conduct caused significant distress. |
| Whether appellate attorney fees were properly denied | Jeri sought appellate fees under Rule 24. | No explicit Rule 24 argument was properly made in brief. | Appellate fees denied for failure to comply with Rule 24 requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coombs v. Dietrich, 253 P.3d 1121 (2011 UT App 136) (stalking statute elements and two or more acts suffice)
- Allen v. Anger, 248 P.3d 1001 (2011 UT App 19) (defines course of conduct and intent/mental distress factors)
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (outrageousness requirement discussed)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (2006 UT App 150) (emotional distress may be shown cumulatively)
- Bailey v. Bayles, 52 P.3d 1158 (2002 UT 58) (purpose and scope of appellate fee rulings)