Title: Embree v Balfanz

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Embree v Balfanz (2002-099); 174 Vt. 560; 817 A.2d 6

[Filed 24-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-099

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  Daniel J. Embree	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
  James Balfanz	                       }	DOCKET NO. 295-11-01 Wrfa

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Appellant James Balfanz, defendant in the case below, appeals from a
  Windsor Family Court order granting appellee Daniel J. Embree's request for
  relief from abuse.  Balfanz argues on appeal that he and Embree are neither
  "family members" nor "household members" within the ambit of 15 V.S.A. §§
  1101-1160, and that Embree is therefore precluded from obtaining such
  relief.  We agree, and reverse the order.

       In 1987, Embree married Heidi (Wilcox) Embree.  Approximately one year
  later, Balfanz married Heidi's sister, Shelly (Wilcox) Balfanz.  At the
  time that this case was brought, Embree and his wife were involved in a
  contentious divorce, and two related incidents led to this litigation.  The
  family court found each incident to constitute "abuse" of Embree by
  Balfanz.  Neither finding of abuse is challenged on appeal by Balfanz.

       The first incident occurred near Embree's Vermont residence, on
  November 6, 2001.  In a first vehicle, Embree's wife, assisted by Balfanz's
  wife and daughter, had just finished moving her belongings out of the
  house.  Balfanz was in a second vehicle, and was waiting  for the first
  vehicle, in a church parking lot at the bottom of the hill toward the main
  road.  At that time, Embree, in a third vehicle, proceeded up the hill
  toward his residence.  Viewing Embree's car with concern, Balfanz followed
  his vehicle.  The family court found that Balfanz's "reckless operation" of
  his vehicle, in following Embree more closely than was reasonable or
  prudent, constituted "abuse."

       A second incident occurred five days later, on November 11, 2001. 
  Balfanz and Embree were both at a cottage in Tupper Lake, New York.  As
  Embree left the cottage, Balfanz placed a rolled rug at the base of the
  door to prevent cold air from entering.  Embree opened the door to come
  back in, and struck Balfanz with the door.  An altercation commenced,
  whereby Balfanz punched Embree in the face, causing a cut and bleeding to
  Embree's lips.
   
 

       On November 26, 2001, Embree filed for a temporary relief from abuse
  order against Balfanz, stating that the relationship between Balfanz and
  Embree was that of a "brother in law."  That same day, the court granted
  Embree's request, and issued an ex parte temporary order, effective until
  the hearing date on December 7, 2001.  Balfanz filed a motion to dismiss
  the temporary order, claiming that the parties were not "family or
  household members" as requisite for the issuance of such order.  The court
  held a hearing on Balfanz's motion, and by written opinion dated December
  18, 2001, the court denied Balfanz's motion.  Although the court found that
  the parties were not "family members" within the meaning of the statute, it
  found that the parties were "household members."  Upon also finding
  sufficient facts to constitute "abuse," the court continued the temporary
  order.  In response to Balfanz's motion to reconsider or to hold a hearing
  on the merits, the court held a hearing on January 29, 2002, and concluded
  at that time that the parties were both "family members" and "household
  members."  Again finding that Embree had established abuse, the court
  issued a permanent order, to expire January 29, 2003.

       According to Vermont's Abuse Prevention Statute, "[a]ny family or
  household member may seek relief from abuse by another family or household
  member on behalf of him or herself or his or her children by filing a
  complaint under this chapter."  15 V.S.A. § 1103(a).  As such, a court must
  make two distinct findings.  First, the plaintiff and defendant must be
  "family or household members."  Second, "abuse" between the parties must
  have occurred. 

       Here, Balfanz attacks the court's findings regarding the first of
  these elements, asserting that Embree and Balfanz are neither "family
  members" nor "household members."  As the findings in this case rest upon
  conclusions of law, our review of these conclusions is nondeferential and
  plenary.  N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi, 169 Vt. 437, 438-39,