Wulf v. Opp
2015 Ohio 3285
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner Jennifer Wulf (pro se) sought a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) under R.C. 2903.214 against respondent Bethany Opp, her former sister‑in‑law, alleging repeated in‑person harassment and numerous prank calls, texts, voicemails, e‑mails, social‑media harassment, fake online profiles, and a hurtful birthday card.
- A magistrate held a full hearing, granted Wulf’s petition, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on September 15, 2014.
- Both parties requested findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii); the trial court denied those requests citing Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(b).
- Opp moved for leave to file untimely objections arguing insufficient evidence and manifest weight error, then filed a timely notice of appeal raising two assignments of error.
- The appellate court reviewed whether (1) sufficient evidence supported the CSPO and (2) the trial court committed plain error by including Civ.R. 53 language in the CSPO that could affect objection rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wulf) | Defendant's Argument (Opp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for CSPO under R.C. 2903.214 (menacing by stalking) | Wulf testified Opp repeatedly harassed her via calls, messages, social media, fake profiles, and sent a hurtful card causing mental distress | Opp argued the evidence was insufficient and the magistrate’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Court held there was sufficient credible evidence by a preponderance that Opp’s conduct constituted menacing by stalking; assignment overruled |
| Trial court’s inclusion of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii) language in CSPO and plain‑error claim | N/A (Wulf does not contest) | Opp argued the inclusion effectively precluded timely objections and was plain error requiring reversal | Court agreed the language was improperly included but ruled no plain error; Opp’s appeal provided equivalent review and no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679 (2006) (courts must consider the pattern of conduct overall when assessing menacing by stalking)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain error in civil cases is limited to extremely rare circumstances to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice)