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.

Lloyd v. Thornsbery

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage

July 23, 2018

SUSAN LLOYD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOSHUA THORNSBERY, Respondent-Appellee.

          Civil Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CV 00390.

          Susan Lloyd, pro se, (Petitioner-Appellant).

          Mark J. Hanna, (For Respondent-Appellee).

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

         {¶1} 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.

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} 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 protection order.
[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 feel threatened.
[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 ...

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.