K.C. v. Chapline
WD 83881
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
Opinion filed September 18, 2021
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
K.C. (hereinafter “Respondent”) and K. Chapline (hereinafter “Appellant”) were in a long-distance, romantic relationship. Respondent and Appellant had met at work in Texas and then Respondent moved to Florida and Appellant moved to Kansas City, Missouri. On some weekends Respondent would come to Kansas City to meet Appellant.
On or about October 7, 2018 Respondent came to visit Appellant in Kansas City. During this visit the parties got into an altercation and Respondent allegedly threatened to tell Appellant’s wife about their relationship. Respondent alleged that “. . . during the altercation Appellant pinned her facedown on the bed which prevented her from breathing, bent her arm behind her back “despite [her] pleas and screams for him to stop,” and stood in the doorway, blocking her from leaving the bedroom.”
Four days after the altercation, Respondent filed an ex-parte order of protection. Appellant was served with his ex-parte order of protection at his place of employment in Kansas City, Missouri. Following a hearing held on January 19, 2019, a full order of protection was entered against Appellant. The judgment was effective until January 15, 2020, “unless sooner terminated or extended by [the] court.”
In March of 2019, Appellant moved back to Texas and started working there. Since returning to Texas in March of 2019, he has solely resided there. On December 2, 2019, Appellant filed a lawsuit against Respondent in Texas state court, asserting claims of “Tortious Interference w[ith] Contract/Business Relations” and “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Appellant alleged that Respondent had contacted two of his employers and provided them with false information which led to his termination and had contacted the police and falsely accused him of abusing his son. Approximately two weeks later, Respondent filed in this action a motion for renewal of the protective order. The trial court set a hearing to occur on February 5, 2020.
Appellant followed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and affidavit in support. Appellant argued that Respondent’s motion to renew the protective order did not establish Appellant—who no longer lived or worked in Missouri—had sufficient contacts with the state to warrant the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.
The trial court denied the motion, finding “[t]he Court had original jurisdiction, and the Court has continuing jurisdiction as a result of the jurisdiction initially attaching.” At the hearing, Respondent provided testimony that she still feared Appellant and that she believed he had contacted and harassed her during the past year in violation of the Order of Protection that was in place. The trial court renewed the Order of Protection which would remain in place until February of 2021.
Appellant then filed a Verified Motion for a New Trial or, in the Alternate, to Amend, Vacate, or Reopen the Judgment. The Court took no notice of this motion, effectively denying it.
Appellant then filed a two point appeal alleging as follows: (1) the trial court’s renewal of the order of protection even though it allegedly did not have personal jurisdiction denied him of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the state laws of Missouri and (2) renewing the order of the protection went against the weight of the evidence.
The Appellate opinion noted that Appellant “has never disputed that the trial court enjoyed personal jurisdiction over him when it entered the original Judgment of Full Order of Protection. Indeed, Missouri courts have jurisdiction over an individual, like Appellant, who has committed acts of domestic violence in Missouri against a non-resident temporarily present in the state . . .”.
Furthermore, the Appellate Court rejected Appellant’s argument that a renewal of an order of protection is akin to “starting over . . . as if the action begins anew and a fresh inquiry into personal jurisdiction must occur at the time renewal is sought.”
Since the trial court had jurisdiction at the time the original order of protection was entered, it still retains jurisdiction to renew the order of protection.
Point 1 on Appeal:
The Appellate Court rejected Appellant’s due process rights were violated by the renewing the order of protection against him. The Appellate opinion also noted that Appellant failed to cite a single case – either from United States Supreme Court or Missouri Courts to support his position.
Point 1 Denied.
Point 2 on Appeal:
The Appellate Court also disagreed with Appellant’s argument that the evidence presented at the hearing did not support the renewal of an order of protection. Specifically, Appellant argued that the renewal was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Opinion emphasized that:
To obtain renewal of a protective order, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that expiration of the full order will place the petitioner in an immediate and present danger of abuse. In satisfying this burden, a renewal order need not be based on any new acts of abuse, although it may be . . . “The renewal also can be based on the fact that the circumstances forming the basis for the initial order continue to exist and a failure to renew will place the petitioner in an immediate and present danger of abuse.” C.B., 356 S.W.3d at 793 (internal marks omitted). Whether the threatened abuse has come to fruition or not is irrelevant.
In the present case, the Appellate Court held that Respondent met her burden.
Point 2 Dismissed.
Appellate Court Ruling Affirmed
