Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case
No. 2016 CV 00390.
Lloyd, pro se, (Petitioner-Appellant).
J. Hanna, (For Respondent-Appellee).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
Appellant, Susan Lloyd, appeals from the May 26, 2017
judgment entry of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.
The trial court held appellant failed to meet her burden of
proof to obtain a civil protection order. The trial
court's judgment is affirmed for the following reasons.
On April 21, 2017, appellant filed a petition for a civil
stalking protection order in the Portage County Court of
Common Pleas against Joshua Thornsbery, appellee herein.
Appellant and appellee are neighbors. In the petition,
appellant alleged appellee and his friends stalked her,
watched her from appellee's yard, and made sexual
comments directed at her for one year preceding her filing
the petition. Appellant requested a civil protection order
under R.C. 2903.214 that would stop appellee and his friends
from stalking her and posting on Facebook about her.
Appellant additionally requested the court issue an ex parte
protection order under R.C. 2903.214(D), which was denied
after a hearing.
A full civil protection order hearing was held May 11 and May
16, 2017. Appellant and appellee were each represented by
counsel, and they each testified. Appellant additionally
presented the testimony of her psychologist and two of her
friends. Appellant also provided the trial court with the
videotaped deposition of her primary care doctor and the
following exhibits: videos depicting appellee's actions
towards her; a diary appellant kept that chronicled
appellee's actions towards her from January 26, 2016,
through April 14, 2017; photographs; print outs of Facebook
posts; copies of police reports involving appellant and
appellee; and a complaint with the Akron Regional Air Quality
Management District that appellant filed against appellee.
On May 25, 2017, the trial court announced its decision.
After reviewing all the evidence, the trial court determined
that although appellee's conduct was obnoxious, appellant
had failed to meet her burden to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that a civil protection order
should be put into place. The trial court entered judgment on
May 26, 2017.
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 20, 2017.
Appellant asserts 27 assignments of error. They state:
[1.] The trial court committed reversible error by denying
plaintiff civil protection order after the plaintiff
submitted sufficient evidence to establish a genuine material
fact as to plaintiff's right to a civil protection order
after hearing evidence from 2 expert physician witnesses and
2 other witnesses who confirmed the behaviors of defendant
caused plaintiff emotional distress and physical harm.
[2.] The trial court committed reversible error by allowing
defendant's Attorney Mark J Hanna to lie in court.
[3.] The trial court committed reversible error by going
against a precedented [11th] district case Frenchko vs
Frenchko Nagy that shows a protection order is proven and
should be granted when the victim seeks medical assistance
and requests a police investigation.
[4.] The trial court committed reversible error by ignoring
Facebook evidence even with a precedented case Frenchko vs
Frenchko Nagy where Facebook posts were used to grant a
[5.] The trial court committed reversible error by going
against precedented case Fortney vs Willhoite where
incidences 2 years prior were used to obtain a protection
order. Fortney also states if you go to the police, then you
[6.] The trial court committed reversible error by using an
objective approach compared to a subjective approach to
denying plaintiffs protection order.
[7.] The trial court committed reversible error by changing
the transcript and refusing to release audio of the trial to
show transcript was changed. [Sic.]
[8.] The trial court committed reversible error by allowing
plaintiff's past cases which were all settled in her
behalf to come into evidence.
[9.] The trial court committed reversible error by holding
against plaintiff the fact plaintiff paid expert physician