Wolfe v. Wolfe


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00947-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-30-2010
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Reversed and rendered.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Domestic violence protective order - Section 93-21-7(1) - Section 93-21-3(a) - Contempt - M.R.C.P. 81
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., dissents with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2009
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Johnny Lee Williams
Disposition: ENTERED A DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case Number: 09-0151 GN W
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Craig E. Wolfe




 CHERYL DENISE ROGERS JOHNSON



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Kimberly Pauline Wolfe PRO SE  
    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
    Topic: Domestic violence protective order - Section 93-21-7(1) - Section 93-21-3(a) - Contempt - M.R.C.P. 81
    Summary of the Facts: In May 2008, while living in Ohio, Kimberly and Craig Wolfe filed a dissolution to begin the process of ending their marriage. As part of that dissolution, the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division in Ohio entered an order restraining both Kimberly and Craig from interfering with each other’s lives. In July 2008, Kimberly moved to Mississippi; Craig followed in October. While in Mississippi, events allegedly occurred that caused Kimberly to file a petition in the Pearl River County Chancery Court for a restraining order. The chancellor found merit to Kimberly’s petition and entered a domestic violence protective order against Craig. Craig appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: In order to obtain a restraining order in Mississippi under section 93-21-7(1), an individual may seek a domestic abuse protection order by filing a petition alleging abuse by the respondent. When all of the events testified to by Kimberly are reviewed, it is clear that there was insufficient evidence for a protective order. Kimberly essentially testified that: Craig had touched her stomach when she did not want him to, Craig had made her feel “pinned” near her car, and Craig had threatened to keep custody of the couple’s son. None of these events involved Craig causing Kimberly any form of bodily injury, nor did they constitute criminal sexual conduct as required under section 93-21-3(a). Furthermore, none of the incidents related by Kimberly constitute stalking or cyberstalking. Therefore, there was no ground to issue the protective order under Mississippi law. It is clear that Kimberly’s testimony would be sufficient to show a violation of the Ohio order, which prohibited the Wolfes from bothering, harassing, annoying, and interfering with one another. However, enforcement of the Ohio protective order would require a finding that Craig is in contempt of the Ohio order. Under M.R.C.P. 81, strict notice requirements must be adhered to in order to initiate a contempt proceeding. Those notice requirements were not complied with in this case; therefore, the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Ohio protective order.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court