Smith v. McAdams, WD 77449

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtJoseph M. Ellis, Judge
Citation454 S.W.3d 418
Docket NumberWD 77449
Decision Date17 February 2015
PartiesStephanie Kim Smith, Appellant, v. Kole Ryan McAdams, Respondent.

454 S.W.3d 418

Stephanie Kim Smith, Appellant
v.
Kole Ryan McAdams, Respondent.

WD 77449

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Opinion filed: February 17, 2015


Jesi Nan DeMeire, for Appellant.

Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding, Judge, Joseph M. Ellis, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Opinion

Joseph M. Ellis, Judge

Appellant Stephanie Kim Smith appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Ray County denying her petition for an adult order of protection against Respondent Kole Ryan McAdams.1 Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in determining that Respondent was not a “household member” within the

454 S.W.3d 420

meaning of § 455.010(7).2 For the following reasons, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On October 8, 2013, Appellant filed her Adult Abuse/Stalking Petition for Order of Protection against Respondent. Respondent is Appellant's daughter's ex-boyfriend and the father of Appellant's grandson. In her petition, Appellant alleged the following incident occurred: Appellant was driving on a county highway when Respondent began following her in his vehicle. Eventually, Respondent aggressively drove past Appellant and cut her off, which caused Appellant to veer off the road. When Appellant turned into a residential driveway, Respondent blocked her in with his vehicle and demanded that she speak with him. When Appellant informed Respondent that she had called the police, Respondent drove away from the residence. Appellant further alleged that Respondent's actions evidenced that he knowingly and intelligently stalked, harassed, and followed her from place to place, attempted to cause her physical harm, and placed her in apprehension of immediate physical harm.

On November 20, 2013, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's petition. Appellant testified that Respondent had resided in her home for approximately two years.3 Two other witnesses also testified that Respondent had lived with Appellant in Appellant's home. Additionally, Appellant introduced evidence that Respondent had listed Appellant's address as his residence on records pertaining to Respondent's purchase of a vehicle. However, on cross-examination, Appellant's daughter testified that Respondent last lived with Appellant approximately six years ago.

At the hearing's conclusion, the circuit court denied Appellant's request for a full order of protection and, at the request of Appellant, memorialized its findings in a written judgment. In the judgment, the circuit court found that “Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct which caused alarm to [Appellant]” and that Appellant “felt fear of danger of physical harm, and that such alarm was reasonable based upon the conduct of the Respondent.” The circuit court further concluded that there was “undisputed evidence” that Appellant and Respondent “resided at the same residential address for two years.” Nevertheless, the circuit court concluded that Appellant and Respondent were not “family” or “household members” as defined in § 455.010(7). In doing so, the circuit court found that “the nature of [Appellant and Respondent's] relationship, in addition to the passage of time between their cohabitation and this cause of action, render their relationship insufficient to meet the definition of ‘household members' who ‘have resided together in the past.’ ” Thus, the circuit court denied Appellant's petition for an order of protection.4

Appellant now appeals from the circuit court's denial of her petition for an order of protection. Our review of a trial

454 S.W.3d 421

court's decision in an Adult Abuse Act case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Barazi v. Eckoldt, 180 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). “We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” McAlister v. Strohmeyer, 395 S.W.3d 546, 549–50 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (internal quotation omitted). “We defer to the trial court's determinations of credibility and consider facts and inferences supporting the judgment.” D.A.T. v. M.A.T., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Juvenile Officer v. J.L.H. (In re Interest of J.L.H.), WD 77850
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 8, 2016
    ...should not be added by a court under the guise of construction to accomplish an end the court deems beneficial.” Smith v. McAdams , 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (internal quotation omitted).6 Had the legislature wished to expressly—and without limitation—exclude the usage of statem......
  • v. J.L.H., WD77850
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2016
    .... should not be added by a court under the guise of construction to accomplish an end the court deems beneficial." Smith v. McAdams, 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). 25. Had the legislature wished to expressly—and without limitation—exclude the usa......
  • Clark v. Mo. Lottery Comm'n, WD 78060
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 2015
    ...us to read language not plainly written or necessarily implied into the statute, which we are not inclined to do. See Smith v. McAdams, 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo.App.W.D. 2015) (“Provisions not plainly written in the law, or necessarily implied from what is written, should not be added by a c......
3 cases
  • Juvenile Officer v. J.L.H. (In re Interest of J.L.H.), WD 77850
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 8, 2016
    ...should not be added by a court under the guise of construction to accomplish an end the court deems beneficial.” Smith v. McAdams , 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (internal quotation omitted).6 Had the legislature wished to expressly—and without limitation—exclude the usage of statem......
  • v. J.L.H., WD77850
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2016
    .... . . should not be added by a court under the guise of construction to accomplish an end the court deems beneficial." Smith v. McAdams, 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). 25. Had the legislature wished to expressly—and without limitation—exclude the usag......
  • Clark v. Mo. Lottery Comm'n, WD 78060
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 2015
    ...us to read language not plainly written or necessarily implied into the statute, which we are not inclined to do. See Smith v. McAdams, 454 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Mo.App.W.D. 2015) (“Provisions not plainly written in the law, or necessarily implied from what is written, should not be added by a c......

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