Wohleber v. Wohleber, 2011 Ohio 6696

Jennifer Wohleber sought a domestic violence civil protection order after learning of a threat by ex-husband Lawrence Wohleber to shoot her.
An ex parte order was issued, and a magistrate held a hearing on the petition.
The magistrate dissolved the protection order, finding insufficient evidence that Wohleber’s statements were known to Wohleber or that she reasonably feared imminent harm.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision that day, but Wohleber objected; the court then sustained the objections and issued a protection order.
Wohleber appeals, arguing the magistrate’s credibility determinations should control and that the threat was not reasonably fearsome or imminent.
The court ultimately affirms, holding there is competent, credible evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm given the history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court properly grant the protection order?	Wohleber argues the magistrate’s credibility findings should control and the threat did not create reasonable fear.	Wohleber contends the magistrate correctly dissolved the order and the threat was non-imminent or non-credible.	Yes; substantial evidence supported reasonable fear of imminent harm.
Was the threat sufficient to establish imminence under the statute?	Wohleber’s prior history and the recent, specific threat show imminence.	Wohleber argues the threat was conditional or not near at hand.	Yes; the threat was recent, specific, and not contingent, establishing imminence.
Was Wohleber properly notified of the hearing on objections?	Notice was provided via objections and mailing; the trial court could proceed.	If not properly notified, prejudice could ensue.	Yes; notice appeared proper and, even if lacking, there is no demonstrated prejudice.

Ngqakayi v. Ngqakayi, 2008-Ohio-4745 (2d Dist. 2008) (reversed when threat not communicated to victim; facts distinguishable)
Rhodes v. Gunter, 2003-Ohio-2342 (9th Dist. 2003) (reasonableness of fear based on petitioner’s history with respondent)
Schultz v. Schultz, 2010-Ohio-3665 (9th Dist. 2010) (preponderance standard for domestic violence protection orders)
Conkle v. Wolfe, 1998-Ohio- (9th Dist. 1998) (recognizes threat-based domestic violence elements)
Gatt v. Gatt, 2002-Ohio-1749 (9th Dist. 2002) (threats and fear analyzed in domestic violence context)
Lavery v. Lavery, 2001-Ohio-1874 (9th Dist. 2001) (assessing fear of imminent harm in domestic violence cases)
Osherow v. Osherow, 2003-Ohio-3927 (9th Dist. 2003) (non-contingent threats support protective orders)
Collie v. Columbus, 108 Ohio App.3d 580 (2002-Ohio-) (imminence discussion; distinguishes conditional threats)
Williamson v. Williamson, 2008-Ohio-6718 (2d Dist. 2008) (recent danger required for protective order; not just past danger)
Henry v. Henry, 2005-Ohio-67 (4th Dist. 2005) (examples of threats and fear considered in dv petitions)
Morris v. Morris, 2009-Ohio-5164 (9th Dist. 2009) (other circumstances relevant to reasonable fear)