Zozula v. Zozula CA2/7
B259853
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Kaitlin (daughter) petitioned for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her mother Alicia to protect herself and her son Cash after Alicia, who had been living with them, returned intoxicated, damaged Kaitlin’s car, and was asked to leave.
- After being asked to leave and told to attend AA before seeing Cash, Alicia sent threatening texts about involving Social Services and insisting she would “get Cash.”
- Alicia returned to the apartment after removing most belongings, attempted to gain entry when Kaitlin was at school, visited Cash’s school (telling Cash to keep the visit secret), and attended a school event (Beach Day) where she refused to leave and later followed Kaitlin and Cash in public.
- Kaitlin reported incidents to police and obtained a temporary restraining order; an evidentiary hearing followed at which both parties testified.
- The trial court found Alicia’s uninvited visits, school contacts, threats, and following behavior constituted ‘‘abuse’’ under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) and granted a three‑year DVRO. Alicia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kaitlin) | Defendant's Argument (Alicia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alicia’s conduct constituted ‘‘abuse’’ under the DVPA allowing a restraining order | Alicia’s uninvited entries, school visits, threatening texts, and following disturbed Kaitlin’s and Cash’s peace and fit DVPA’s definition of abuse | Alicia denied abusive conduct, claimed she was concerned for Cash, said Kaitlin wrongfully evicted her and that she refuted the allegations | Court held substantial evidence supported that Alicia’s unsolicited visits, threats, and contacts were enjoinable ‘‘abuse’’ under the DVPA and affirmed the DVRO |
| Whether a non‑physical pattern of conduct requires fear of imminent serious bodily injury | Not required; DVPA includes harassing conduct and disturbance of peace as abuse | Argued S.M. requires fear of imminent serious bodily injury or physical threat to justify DVRO | Court rejected this, holding DVPA covers non‑physical harassment and peace‑disturbing conduct |
| Whether tenancy/possession defense (wrongful eviction) defeats DVRO relief | DVRO aimed to prevent recurrence of domestic violence and separation; tenancy issues are separate | Argued wrongful eviction justified her return and contested exclusion from the dwelling | Court held tenancy disputes do not negate DVPA relief; court may exclude a party from dwelling regardless of title/lease |
| Whether trial court abused discretion on credibility / sufficiency of evidence | Testimony and texts provided sufficient evidence; credibility resolved by trial court | Asserted she refuted allegations and raised evidentiary objections | Court affirmed deference to trial court credibility findings and found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App.) (uninvited repeated contacts despite no‑contact requests can constitute DVPA abuse)
- Sabato v. Brooks, 242 Cal.App.4th 715 (Cal. Ct. App.) (DVPA ‘‘abuse’’ includes behavior enjoinable under §6320 such as disturbing the peace)
- S.M. v. E.P., 184 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App.) (restraining order improper where record showed only ‘‘badgering’’ and court did not find harassment or threat of bodily injury)
- Perez v. Torres‑Hernandez, 1 Cal.App.5th 389 (Cal. Ct. App.) (harassing and annoying conduct can warrant protective orders)
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App.) (persistent unwanted communications may justify protective orders)
- In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney, 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App.) (DVPA not limited to physical injury; emotional/mental disturbance covered)