W.T. v. H.S.

• Decision Date: 16 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2210492
• Parties: W.T. v. H.S.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

W.T. v. H.S.

No. 2210492

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

September 16, 2022

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court (CV-21-183)

EDWARDS, JUDGE.

In September 2021, H.S. filed in the Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court") a form petition seeking a protection-from-abuse ("PFA") order pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-1 et seq.

On that form petition, H.S. named W.T. as the defendant and checked the box indicating that she and W.T. "has or had a dating relationship." H.S. attached to her petition a police report indicating that she had reported that W.T., who the police report characterized as her ex-boyfriend, had engaged in certain acts, including trespassing on her property and sending her threatening text messages. In a document entitled "Protection From Abuse (PFA) Cover Sheet," however, H.S. described her relationship with W.T. as "ex-friend." H.S. also completed the top portion of the forms entitled "Ex Parte Protection Order" ("the proposed ex parte PFA order") and "Protection Order" ("the proposed PFA order") at the time she filed her petition. Although each of those forms had a box to check to indicate that the plaintiff and the defendant were in a dating relationship, on the proposed ex parte PFA order, H.S. drew a separate box checked that box, and wrote beside it: "We never dated. Friends" on the proposed PFA order, H.S. checked the box for "Current or Former Dating Relationship" but crossed out the word "Dating."

The trial court entered an ex parte PFA order on September 24 2021. That order, which appeared to be a copy of the proposed ex parte PFA order H.S. had filed, indicated via check mark in a box drawn on the form order that H.S. and W.T. had "never dated" and were "friends." After a trial held in November 2021, the trial court entered a PFA order on November 24 2021. That PFA order appeared to be a copy of the proposed PFA order H.S. had filed, because, although the box for "Current or Former Dating Relationship" was checked, the word "Dating" was crossed out.

W.T. filed a postjudgment motion in which he challenged the PFA order on the ground that H.S. had not established that she and W.T. had been in a "dating relationship," as that term is defined in the Act. The trial court denied W.T.'s postjudgment motion on February 7, 2022.

W.T. appealed the PFA order. No transcript was made of the November 2021 trial. W.T. submitted, and the trial court approved, a Rule 10(d), Ala. R. App. P., statement of the evidence. That statement, by and large, reiterates the facts set out in the order denying W.T.'s postjudgment motion. The statement reads, in pertinent part:

"The matter was called to order on the 23rd day of November 2021, for a final hearing on a Petition for Protection from Abuse filed by [H.S.], pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (Ala. Code [1975], § 30-5-1 et seq.). [H.S.] was present, pro se, and [W.T.] was present and represented by his counsel of record, Eric Funderburk. [H.S.] also had a witness present with her.

"Prior to taking testimony, [W.T.'s] counsel moved the trial court to dismiss the petition based on [H.S.'s] statements in the pleadings that the parties did not have a dating relationship. [W.T.'s] counsel argued that because there was no dating relationship, Ala. Code [1975], § 30-5-1, et seq., would not apply and [H.S.] would therefore not have standing to seek an order of protection pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act.

"The trial court placed the witnesses under oath and examined [H.S.] concerning [W.T.'s] motion to dismiss. Under examination from the trial court, [H.S.] testified that she and [W.T.] had been intimate on three occasions, the first being in February 2021, and the last being in May 2021. Further, [H.S.] testified that she was not and had never been in a dating relationship with [W.T.].

"On cross examination, [H.S.] again testified that she was not in a dating relationship with [W.T.] and that the two had never been in a dating relationship.

"[H.S.] called a witness to testify about a text exchange the witness had with [W.T.] in, or

...