B.L.L. v. M.T.

Decision Date24 November 2021
Docket Number21 MA 0021
Citation2021 Ohio 4300
PartiesB.L.L., Petitioner-Appellee, v. M.T., Respondent-Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 20 DV 212

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.

B.L.L., Pro Se, 12579 Leffingwell Road, Berlin Center, Ohio 44401, Petitioner-Appellee (No Brief Filed) and

Atty Rhys Cartwright-Jones, and Atty. Elliousa Nemer, 42 North Phelps Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Respondent-Appellant.

BEFORE: David A. D'Apolito, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

D'Apolito, J.

{¶1} Appellant-Respondent, M.T. appeals the judgment entry of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting a domestic violence civil protection order ("DVCPO") to Appellee-Petitioner, B.L.L. pursuant to R.C. 3113.31. Appellant contends that Appellee's testimony at the hearing on the petition for DVCPO was either unworthy of credence, or, if believed, did not meet the standard of proof required for the issuance of a protective order. Appellee did not file a response brief. Because the issuance of the DVCPO at issue in this appeal turns completely on the credibility of the witnesses as assigned by the factfinder, the judgment entry of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} Appellee filed the petition for DVCPO on May 12, 2020. At an evidentiary hearing conducted by the magistrate by videoconference on July 17, 2020, Appellee, acting pro se, testified that Appellant was her former boyfriend and that he resided with her until April 15, 2020, when she "asked him to leave, kicked him out." (9/10/20 Hrg. Tr., p. 4-5.)

{¶3} Appellee testified that April 15, 2020 marked the last in a series of attempts to oust Appellant from her home, however, he had previously refused to leave. She further testified that the involvement of the sheriffs department on May 12, 2020, at her request, was a motivating factor in Appellant's decision to return to the residence and collect his remaining belongings in order to vacate the premises permanently. (Id. at 5.)

{¶4} Appellee testified that Appellant frequently left threatening messages during their relationship, through voice mail and text, and, on at least one occasion, informed Appellee that she was "going to pay." She further testified that Appellant had "held [her] down and left bruises." (Id.)

{¶5} Appellee offered a series of exhibits to bolster her testimony. The first exhibit was a January 25, 2020 voice mail message from Appellant to Appellee in which he disparaged Appellee for her failure to clean her residence prior to a birthday party for one of her children. Appellee testified that the voice mail message "shows how [she] was spoke to [sic] on a daily basis." (Id. at 6.)

{¶6} In the voice mail message, Appellant states that Appellee is "disrespectful" and an "arrogant asshole." He further states that Appellee's life is in complete disarray due to her inability to plan, and that is why "everything that [she] own[s] is a piece of shit." (Id. at 7.) Evidently, Appellant believed that Appellee had blamed Appellant for the state of the residence, as he states, "This is not - my issue; this is your issue. (Inaudible) cleaning the house." He continues, "You're not going to treat me like this." The message concludes, "Freaking grow up and take care of your shit. That - that - that's the biggest favor, anything that anybody's done for you to tell you what I just told you. You're welcome." (Id. at 8.)

{¶7} Appellee also offered a copy of a text message, in which Appellant stated that he was not going to tolerate an unidentified issue, and that Appellee "would pay for it later." (Id. at 13.) At that point in the hearing, the magistrate briefly interrupted Appellee's testimony in order to instruct Appellant to mute the speaker on his computer, because the magistrate overheard Appellant laughing during Appellee's testimony. (Id. at 14.)

{¶8} Next, Appellee offered a photograph of a bruise on her arm. She testified that Appellant was angry with her in February of 2020 for "finding stuff in her closet [that] he thought was none of her business," so he "held [her] down on the bed [and yelled] at [her.]" (Id. at 15.)

{¶9} Appellee also offered into evidence a telephone call log, which revealed that Appellant telephoned Appellee nineteen times after she did not answer his first call. Appellee testified that Appellant was typically angry when she did not answer his calls, even when there was an innocuous explanation, i.e., she was feeding the horses (the parties are horse trainers) or her phone "died." (Id. at 16.) Appellee testified that the telephone call log was from May, then, realizing the parties were no longer a couple in May, she changed her testimony to March. However, Appellee further testified that "[t]his was in January, in February, March, April. This was all the way up in - this was my whole relationship." (Id. at 17-18.)

{¶10} The final exhibit offered into evidence by Appellee was an image that was not described in the hearing testimony. It appears that the exhibit was a series of text messages following one of Appellant's unanswered telephone calls. Appellee testified, "[a]nd it was constant - it would go from 'Answer the phone,' to 'what are you doing,' to 'Are you cheating on me,' to 'you're lying, answer your phone.' Appellee explained "[t]his goes along with the phone calls about - it's just the constant mental abuse that I dealt with [sic]." (Id. at 20.)

{¶11} Finally, Appellee testified that she forwarded an electronic mail to the domestic relations court from Appellant's ex-wife stating that he was not living in Louisiana, but merely spent the summer visiting family there. Appellee relied on the electronic mail to establish that she did not know the location of Appellant's permanent residence, so any testimony that he was now living in Louisiana provided her no security. (Id. at 21.)

{¶12} At the conclusion of her direct testimony, Appellee stated that she and her then twelve-year-old daughter lived alone and lived in fear of Appellant. She further testified that it was the sheriff, who was present when Appellant collected his belongings on May 12, 2020, who encouraged Appellee to petition for a DVCPO. (Id. at 22.)

{¶13} On cross-examination, Appellee conceded that the January 25, 2020 voice mail message contained no threat of physical violence. (Id. at 24.) Appellee further conceded that she sent Appellant text messages in March of 2020, which he offered into evidence during his direct testimony, telling him that she loved him. She acknowledged the fact that she sent the affectionate messages at least one month after Appellant allegedly held her down and bruised her arm. She testified that "[h]e was very good at beating you to a pulp * * * then bringing you back up." (Id. at 26.) She explained that she was "responding to him [affectionately] to be in the safe zone." (Id. at 27.)

{¶14} Appellant testified that he moved from Ohio to Louisiana in April of 2020. (Id. at 37.) With respect to the alleged incident of domestic violence, he testified that he was a victim, not a perpetrator. According to Appellant, Appellee grabbed his hand and twisted it in April of 2020, causing a fracture, "two screw, three pins, a dislocated knuckle, and a torn tendon." (Id. at 38.)

{¶15} Appellant denied causing the bruise on Appellee's arm. He testified that bruises are a common byproduct of working with horses, and he speculated that the bruise in the photograph was likely a work injury. He denied ever striking Appellee or any other woman.

{¶16} According to Appellant, the phone log establishing nineteen consecutive telephone calls from Appellant to Appellee reflects a series of calls he made in 2019, not 2020. Appellant testified that he was concerned about Appellee's welfare when she did not answer his calls, and he called her mother that evening to confirm that Appellee was not in any danger. (Id. at 39.)

{¶17} On the subject of the voice mail message, Appellant explained that Appellee's family members arrived at her home to celebrate her daughter's birthday and there was no place for the guests to sit. He testified that "you couldn't even get in the door. Dog crap, horse crap, boxes from moving. * * *I mean, just about as much dirt on the floor as there was in the barn." He attributed his diatribe to the "frustration of constantly having to deal with irresponsibility." (Id. at 40.)

{¶18} Appellant testified that the sheriff's office involvement on May 12th was at both parties' request. He further testified that he did not say a word to Appellee on that day. (Id. at 41-42.)

{¶19} Finally, Appellant explained that he laughed earlier in the hearing due to Appellee's attempt to characterize his statement that Appellant was "going to pay for it" to be a physical threat. Appellant translated the phrase to mean that he was "done with [the] relationship." (Id. at 41.)

{¶20} Appellant's father, who accompanied Appellant on May 12, 2020 to collect his belongings from Appellee's residence, testified on his son's behalf at the hearing. He confirmed that Appellant did not converse with Appellee on May 12, 2020. (Id. at 48.) He also confirmed that Appellee fractured Appellant's hand, and that the injury required surgery. (Id. at 48.)

{¶21} When asked if she had any additional testimony, Appellee conceded that Appellant's hand was fractured, but she claimed that it was injured when she "pushed his hand away, not in an aggressive way." (Id. at 49.) She characterized Appellant's hand injury as a "freak accident." (Id.). Appellee added that Appellant attempted to trick the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT