## Facts

- Brenda L. Walton and Philip M. Walton were formerly married and divorced in 2003.
- During the divorce proceedings, Brenda sought exclusive use of the family home, alleging Philip had committed domestic violence; the divorce court denied that request.
- In 2004, Brenda filed a petition for a domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO) under Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31.
- The trial court issued an ex parte protection order and then, at Philip’s request, conducted a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether a continuing CPO should issue.
- At the hearing, Brenda testified that Philip physically abused her throughout the marriage.
- Brenda introduced photographs into evidence that she said depicted injuries resulting from Philip’s abuse.
- After hearing the evidence, the trial court issued a CPO, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Brenda was in danger of domestic violence.
- The trial court stated that the CPO did not affect the divorce proceeding.
- Philip appealed, arguing that (1) res judicata barred Brenda’s CPO petition because the divorce court had already rejected domestic-violence-based relief, and (2) the trial court’s domestic-violence finding was contrary to the evidence.

## Issues

1. Does res judicata bar a former spouse from seeking a domestic-violence civil protection order under Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31 after the divorce court previously denied related relief based on alleged domestic violence?
2. Did the trial court err in issuing the CPO because the finding that Brenda was in danger of domestic violence was against the evidence presented at the hearing?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s issuance of the civil protection order.
- The court rejected Philip’s res judicata argument, treating the CPO petition as a statutory remedy distinct from the relief litigated in the divorce action and noting the trial court’s statement that the CPO did not affect the divorce proceeding.
- The court held that competent, credible evidence supported the trial court’s finding—under the preponderance standard—that Brenda was in danger of domestic violence, including Brenda’s testimony and the photographs admitted into evidence.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and declined to reweigh conflicting testimony on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A domestic-violence civil protection order under Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31 is a statutory proceeding that may be sought independently of relief requested in a divorce case; an earlier divorce ruling does not automatically bar a later CPO petition on res judicata grounds.
- The petitioner must prove domestic violence or a present danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Appellate review of a CPO gives substantial deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments; a CPO will be upheld when supported by competent, credible evidence.
- A trial court may issue a CPO while stating that the protection order does not alter or control matters decided in a separate divorce proceeding.

## Conclusion

The Sixth District affirmed the CPO because Brenda’s petition was not barred by res judicata despite the earlier divorce-related ruling, and the trial court’s finding that she was in danger of domestic violence was supported by competent, credible evidence under the preponderance standard.


Brenda L. Walton v. Philip M. Walton, 2004 WL 3017265 (2004)