Pratt v. Lasley, WD 65992.

Citation213 S.W.3d 159
Decision Date16 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. WD 65992.,WD 65992.
PartiesTerry PRATT, Respondent, v. Chuck LASLEY, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Mark A. Hubbard, Platte City, for appellant.

Bryan T. Pratt, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Presiding Judge, ROBERT G. ULRICH, Judge and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge.

Chuck Lasley appeals from an order of protection entered against him as a result of a petition filed by his brother-in-law, Terry Pratt, pursuant to §§ 455.010 to 455.085,1 commonly referred to as the Adult Abuse Act.

Lasley is married to the sister of Pratt's wife. On August 21, 2005, while in Pratt's driveway, Lasley threatened to "beat [Pratt's] ass." On August 28, 2005, while on Pratt's property, Lasley struck Pratt's head with a closed fist.

The following day, Pratt filed a Petition for Order of Protection in the Circuit Court of Platte County. The trial court entered a temporary order of protection and scheduled a show cause hearing. Following that hearing, on September 6, 2005, the trial court entered a Full Order of Protection against Lasley.

In his sole point on appeal, Lasley contends that the trial court erred in granting an order of protection because he and Pratt were not "related by blood or marriage" as required by the statute. He argues that, because they are married to sisters, they are not related by consanguinity or affinity and should, therefore not be considered to be related by marriage.

Section 455.020.1 provides that "[a]ny adult who has been subject to abuse by a present or former adult family or household member, or who has been the victim of stalking, may seek relief under sections 455.010 to 455.085 by filing a verified petition alleging such abuse or stalking by the respondent." Section 455.010(5) defines "`family' or `household member'" to include "spouses, former spouses, adults related by blood or marriage, adults who are presently residing together or have resided together in the past, an adult who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim, and adults who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have resided together at any time." Thus, any adult related to the petitioner by blood or marriage is a "family member" under § 455.020.1.

Lasley contends that the trial court erroneously determined that Pratt was related to him by marriage as required by the statute. He argues that, while he was related by marriage to his wife's sister, he was not related by marriage to her sister's husband and that the trial court misconstrued the statutory language in concluding otherwise.

"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and appellate review is de novo." Nelson v. Crane, 187 S.W.3d 868, 869 (Mo. banc 2006). "The primary rule in statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used, to give effect to that intent if possible, and to consider the words in their plain and ordinary meaning." Id. at 869-70.

Lasley contends that, because the statute barring those "of kin" to a party from serving as a jury member has been restricted to those related by consanguinity or direct affinity,2 the "related by marriage" language in § 455.010(...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Benjamin v. McKinnon
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 26, 2008
    ...virtue of Lucas and Tara's prior marriage. Therefore, Jeremy and Terry were Lonna's relatives by collateral affinity. Pratt v. Lasley, 213 S.W.3d 159, 160 (Mo.App.2007), supports this statutory interpretation. In Pratt, the court concluded that two men who were married to sisters were relat......
  • Forbes v. Allison
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 13, 2022
    ...Whether the trial court was required to dismiss the Forbes' petition based on section 228.342 is a question of law.[5] Pratt v. Lasley, 213 S.W.3d 159, 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). We apply de novo review to questions of law. Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Mo. banc 2012). Analysis The A......
  • Forbes v. Allison
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 13, 2022
    ...the trial court was required to dismiss the Forbes’ petition based on section 228.342 is a question of law.5 Pratt v. Lasley , 213 S.W.3d 159, 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). We apply de novo review to questions of law. Pearson v. Koster , 367 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Mo. banc 2012).AnalysisThe Allisons’ p......
  • S.D. v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 27, 2012
    ...are to Missouri Court Rules (2011). Sections 455.010 to 455.085 are “commonly referred to as the Adult Abuse Act.” Pratt v. Lasley, 213 S.W.3d 159, 159 (Mo.App. W.D.2007). 2. Appellant's first assertion purports to challenge a claim never made by Petitioner. And the trial court found that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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