G.E.G. v. Gauert, L.M.D. v. Gauert, R.J.D. v. GauertAppeal from the Circuit Court of Callaway County to the Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
Reversed and Vacated
This particular case law update consolidates three appellate opinions since three different individuals filed an Order of Protection against the same person, Robert Gauert.
- E.G. v. Gauert
G.E.G. worked as a hired hand on L.D. and R.J.D.’s farm. On August 14, 2019, G.E.G. and L.D. were bathing a horse in R.J.D.’s and L.D.’s pasture approximately twenty-five yards from the property line to Gauert’s property. G.E.G. had her dog with her, which was off-leash and wandered onto Gauert’s property. Gauert shot and killed L.D.’s dog alleging that the dog was threatening the cats on his property and bared his teeth at him. Gauert alleged that he shot the dog for his own protection.
Several days later, as G.E.G. was leaving the property, she saw another car leaving Gauert’s driveway. Gauert’s girlfriend was driving the other car with Gauert in the passenger seat. After both vehicles turned onto the highway, Gauert’s girlfriend moved to the passing lane and slowed down until her vehicle was parallel to G.E.G.’s vehicle, and Gauert began taking photographs of G.E.G. through the window of the car.
On September 3, 2019, G.E.G. filed an order of protection against Gauert on the grounds of stalking.
- M.D. v. Gauert:
L.M.D. is married to R.J.D. and they own the farm next door to Gauert. Over the years, there have been disputes between the parties. In May of 2011, Gauert called L.M.D. a “bitch” and a “whore” when she was retrieving her mail. R.J.D. witnessed the encounter and intervened. No physical confrontation between R.J.D. and Gauert occurred.
Gauert and L.M.D. and R.J.D. had another argument later in 2011, regarding Gauert’s use of the easement across the Saddle Club’s property. The Saddle Club and R.J.D. agreed to install a fence along the easement to prohibit Gauert from using the easement to enter his property. When R.J.D. was installing the fence, he and Gauert got into a verbal altercation and the police were called. The police determined that R.J.D. was permitted to install the fence. Subsequently, Gauert got in his vehicle and drove over L.M.D.’s and R.J.D.’s trash can as he went to his house. Gauert was arrested for this particular incident.
In 2012 or 2013 when L.M.D. and Gauert ran into each other at the hardware store, Gauert started yelling and caused a scene and L.M.D. and R.J.D. left the store.
There was a verbal dispute in 2019 between L.M.D. and Gauert and on one occasion L.M.D. and her husband drove on Gauert’s property in their ATV to determine if Gauert was having a bonfire on their or a neighbor’s property and also reported him to the fire department. On August 14, 2019, Gauert shot and killed L.M.D.’s dog.
On September 4, 2019, L.M.D. filed a petition seeking an order of protection based on an allegation of stalking.
- J.D. v. Gauert:
R.J.D. is married to L.M.D. and owns the farm next to Respondent. The facts that were the basis of his wife’s petition for an Order of Protection (see above) were also pled by him. On September 4, 2019, L.M.D. filed a petition seeking an order of protection based on an allegation of stalking.
On January 23, 2020 a bench trial was conducted on all three Orders of Protection. A full order of protection filed by each Petitioner was entered against Gauert. As a result of the Order of Protection being entered against Gauert, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Gauert appealed all three Orders of Protection entered against him by the trial court. With respect to all three Orders of Protection, Gauert argued that: (1) First, he asserts that the circuit court erred in granting the Judgment because the record lacks substantial evidence in that R.J.D. failed to prove all of the elements required to establish stalking under the Adult Abuse Act and (2) the circuit court erred in ordering that Gauert may not possess firearms because the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in that the Act does not provide for a remedy of prohibiting the possession of firearms except when the parties are “intimate partners”. The Appellate Court held that since Gauert’s first point on appeal is dispositive, the second point does not need to be addressed.
The Act defines “[s]talking” as “when any person purposely engages in an unwanted course of conduct that causes alarm to another person . . . when it is reasonable in that person’s situation to have been alarmed by the conduct.” Section 455.010(14). “‘Course of conduct'” means a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts over a period of time, however short, that serves no legitimate purpose.” Section 455.010(14)(b). “‘Alarm’ means to cause fear of danger of physical harm[.]” Section 7 455.010(14)(a). Therefore, to obtain relief under the Act a petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct of at least two or more acts, (2) which served no legitimate purpose, (3) causing the petitioner to fear danger of physical harm, and (4) that the petitioner’s fear was reasonable.
Furthermore, the Appellate Opinion noted that, “[T]he stalking provision of the [Act] was not meant to be a panacea for the minor arguments that frequently occur between neighbors.”
In all 3 cases, the Appellate Court noted that the Petitioner’s failed to demonstrate they feared of physical harm in their interactions with Gauert. With respect to the incident regarding the bonfire, the Appellate Court found that Respondent was within his rights in following R.J.D. and L.M.D. when they were on his property since they were trespassing and their presence served no legitimate purpose.
All three orders of protection are reversed and vacated in their entirety.
