Keene v. Gangi, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 667 (Mass. App. Div. 3/22/2004)

• Citation: 60 Mass. App. Ct. 667
• Decision Date: 22 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 01-P-1479.,01-P-1479.
• Parties: ALISA M. KEENE <I>v.</I> FRANK T. GANGI.
• Court: Massachusetts Appellate Division

Page 667

60 Mass. App. Ct. 667

ALISA M. KEENE

v. FRANK T. GANGI.

No. 01-P-1479.

Massachusetts Appellate Division.

Middlesex.

February 14, 2003.

March 22, 2004.

Present: PERRETTA, GRASSO, & BERRY, JJ.

Abuse Prevention. Protective Order. Words, "Abuse."

This court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant's alleged secret installation of a video camera in the plaintiff's bedroom and the defendant's statements concerning his access to surveillance equipment placed her in fear of imminent serious physical harm for purposes of obtaining a protective order under G. L. c. 209A, § 1, where nothing in the record showed a history of violence, threats, or hostility in their relationship, and where the plaintiff presented no circumstances justifying her delay in seeking a protective order. [669-671]

COMPLAINT for protection from abuse filed in the Newton Division of the District Court Department on July 3, 2001.

The case was heard by Dyanne J. Klein, J.

Harvey A. Silverglate for the defendant.

Alisa M. Keene, pro se, submitted a brief.

PERRETTA, J.

Frank T. Gangi's appeal requires us to consider, once again, the outer limits of the definition of the word "abuse" as defined in G. L. c. 209A, § 1. He argues that the plaintiff (Keene) failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence, see Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597 (1995), that his actions placed her "in fear of imminent serious physical harm." G. L. c. 209A, § 1. We agree and vacate the protective order pursuant to § 7 of the statute.

1. The evidence.¹ By way of background, there was evidence

1. Because the judge made no oral or written findings of fact, we recite the evidence in some detail.