Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-002085-ME
07-31-2015
MICHAEL DEAN VAUGHAN APPELLANT v. JENNIFER CAROL VAUGHAN APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: C. Ed Massey Erlanger, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jennifer Carol Vaughan, Pro Se Covington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER J. MEHLING, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-D-00579
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: ACREE, CHIEF JUDGE; CLAYTON AND KRAMER, JUDGES. CLAYTON, JUDGE: This is an appeal from a decision of the Kenton Circuit Court denying the Appellant's, Michael Dean Vaughan, motion to set aside the Domestic Violence Order (DVO) entered against him. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Appellee, Jennifer Carol Vaughan, filed a Petition for a DVO against Appellant. In the petition, Jennifer swore that Michael had struck her. On the following day, December 27, 2012, a DVO was issued. On the DVO Order of Protection, the trial court found:
That it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and the Respondent has been provided with reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.
The trial court also found that "[b]y agreement, no findings." This notation was made on the second page of the Order of Protection, just above the "Additional Findings" category. Michael was present before the trial court on December 27th and was represented by counsel. Jennifer was not present, but her counsel was present and acting on her behalf.
Counsel for both parties approached the bench and informed the trial judge that they had entered into an agreement wherein the DVO would be issued and that Michael would stay 500 feet away from Jennifer. There was also an agreement that there would be "no findings."
On October 14, 2014, Michael filed a Motion to Reverse the Domestic Violence Order. He argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because there were "no findings." The trial judge denied the motion and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
We review questions of law, including jurisdiction, de novo. Phelps v. Wehr Constructors, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 395, 397 (Ky. App. 2004). There are no questions of fact in this instance. Michael agrees that his counsel, with his permission, entered into an agreement with Jennifer's counsel wherein there would be no trial on the Emergency Protective Order (EPO), but that the trial judge would make no findings regarding the specific acts/threats of abuse upon which the DVO would be based. Counsel for Michael specifically agreed to the entry of the DVO and that Michael would stay 500 feet away from Jennifer for the three year period that the DVO was in effect.
Michael contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction because it did not make findings. The trial judge actually did make findings regarding jurisdiction. The trial court also made findings that "it was established by a preponderance of the evidence that an act(s) of domestic violence or abuse occurred and may again occur." Finally, the trial court made several findings with respect to ordering that Michael not dispose or damage property, stay 500 feet away from Jennifer and have no contact with her.
Michael relies on Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. App. 2005) in support of his motion. In Wright, a panel of our court did provide that a full evidentiary hearing should be held prior to a contested DVO being entered. In this case, however, Michael did not contest the DVO, but agreed to its entry and the imposition of a 500-foot safety zone that he would not violate. He was present with counsel in the courtroom at the time the DVO was instituted. There is no reason to conclude he was not aware of the circumstances. Thus, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: C. Ed Massey
Erlanger, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jennifer Carol Vaughan, Pro Se
Covington, Kentucky