Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reising v. Reising

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 18, 2017

JOSEPH REISING PETITIONER-APPELLEE
v.
KELLY REISING RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

         Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-13-803373

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Paul W. Vincent, Adam James Vincent

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Brian W. Sharkin Law Office of Brian W. Sharkin

          BEFORE: Boyle, J., Kilbane, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          MARY J. BOYLE, J.

         {¶1} Respondent-appellant, Kelly Reising, appeals from the trial court's judgment denying her motion to terminate a civil stalking protection order ("CSPO"). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand with instructions.

         I. Procedural History

         {¶2} In March 2013, petitioner-appellee, Joseph Reising, filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order pursuant to R.C. 2903.214 against Kelly. Joseph sought a protection order on behalf of himself, his two daughters whom he fathered with Kelly, his current wife, and his current wife's two children. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary CSPO and set a full hearing accordingly.

         {¶3} On April 2, 2013, the trial court held a full hearing and granted the CSPO as requested. Although the trial court did not make findings of fact, it checked the paragraph in the CSPO that stated as follows:

The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) the Respondent has knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused Petitioner to believe that the Respondent will cause physical harm or cause or has caused mental distress; and 2) the following orders are equitable, fair, and necessary to protect the persons named in this Order from stalking offenses.

         The trial court ordered the CSPO to remain in effect until April 2, 2018.

         {¶4} On April 27, 2016, Kelly filed her motion to terminate the CSPO, arguing that the original circumstances leading to the CSPO had materially changed and that the CSPO was no longer equitable. Kelly asked the trial court to terminate the CSPO so that she could have contact with her two daughters whom she had not had contact with for three years.

         {¶5} The trial court held a hearing on Kelly's motion to terminate at which Kelly and Joseph testified. The trial court did not announce her decision orally at the hearing.

         {¶6} On August 4, 2016, the trial court issued a judgment that denied Kelly's motion to terminate and ruled, "Hearing held 08/03/2016 on respondent's motion to terminate C.S.P.O. Court reporter present. The court finds respondent failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.