Henderson v. Fowler, 012221 OHCA2, 28765

Docket Nº28765
Opinion JudgeFROELICH, J.
Party NameCHRISTY HENDERSON Plaintiff-Appellant v. JEFFERY FOWLER Defendant-Appellee
AttorneyCHRISTY HENDERSON, 116 E. Lincoln Street, #5, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se JEFFERY FOWLER, 116 E. Lincoln Street, #4, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Defendant-Appellee, Pro Se
Judge PanelDONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Case DateJanuary 22, 2021
CourtCourt of Appeals of Ohio

2021-Ohio-144

CHRISTY HENDERSON Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFERY FOWLER Defendant-Appellee

No. 28765

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery

January 22, 2021

Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No. 2020-CV-1254

CHRISTY HENDERSON, 116 E. Lincoln Street, #5, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se

JEFFERY FOWLER, 116 E. Lincoln Street, #4, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Defendant-Appellee, Pro Se

OPINION

FROELICH, J.

{¶ 1} Christy Henderson appeals from the denial of her petition for a civil sexually oriented offense protection order against Jeffery Fowler. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed.

{¶ 2} On March 9, 2020, Henderson filed a petition for a civil sexually oriented offense protection order, alleging that she suspected that Fowler "regular[l]y pleasures himself in view of me." Henderson waived an ex parte hearing, and the matter was set for a full hearing before a magistrate on March 17, 2020. The hearing occurred as scheduled, and Henderson and Fowler both appeared. No transcript of the hearing has been filed.

{¶ 3} On March 20, 2020, the magistrate denied Henderson's petition. The magistrate summarized the testimony at the hearing as follows: The Magistrate first heard testimony from Petitioner, Christy Henderson, a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio. She and Respondent both have rooms they rent in the same house. Petitioner states when she walks by Petitioner's room, he is "pleasuring himself" on the bed and his room has an odor. She also claims he "plays his porn really loud" and it is "just disgusting."

Respondent denies Petitioner's allegations. Petitioner has been taking advantage, financially, of Respondent for some time. He recently gave her $8 and has asked her to pay him back on two occasions and after the second time, she filed this petition. Respondent claims Petitioner "offered herself" to him for $300.

The magistrate concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed a sexually oriented offense. The evidence is equally balanced as to whether events occurred as Petitioner describes."

{¶ 4} The same day, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and denied Henderson's petition. Henderson did not file objections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's ruling. Instead, she promptly appealed the trial court's judgment

{¶ 5} Henderson does not state any assignments of error on appeal, but we infer that she is challenging the trial court's denial of her petition for a civil protection order. She claims that Fowler lied to the trial court when he said that he would be moving several blocks away from her. Henderson states that Fowler moved away for only one week before returning to the residence next door to her. Henderson indicated her belief that Fowler continues to enter her home without permission when she is not there.

{¶ 6} In response, Fowler states that he has spoken with Henderson in an attempt to recoup $8.00 that he loaned to her and that Henderson is making false accusations against him in an effort to have his probation revoked.

{¶ 7} "When a magistrate has denied or granted a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP