[Cite as Tredenary v. Fritz, 2017-Ohio-8632.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

ANTOINETTE TREDENARY, et al., : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 CASE NO. 2017-L-045

 - vs - : 

DANIEL FRITZ, : 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, 

Case No. 2016 DV 000181. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

David M. Lynch, 333 Babbitt Road, Suite 333, Euclid, OH 44123 (For PlaintiffAppellant). 

Elaine Tassi, 34955 Chardon Road, Willoughby Hills, OH 44094 (For DefendantAppellee). 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Antoinette Tredenary, appeals the judgment of the Lake County 

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying her petition for a 

domestic violence civil protection order against her former husband, appellee, Daniel 

Fritz. At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} While the parties were married, they adopted D.T., the biological son of 

Antoinette’s brother, Dominic Tredenary. The parties were divorced in Lake County in 
 2

2011. Daniel was granted legal custody of D.T. and Antoinette was given visitation. At 

the time of the hearing in this case, D.T. was 12 years old. 

{¶3} On September 6, 2016, Antoinette filed a petition for a domestic violence 

civil protection order for herself and D.T. against Daniel. In support, she alleged Daniel 

committed an act of domestic violence against her on August 23, 2016. The magistrate 

granted an ex parte protection order, but only in favor of her, not D.T. The case came 

on for a full hearing protection order. 

{¶4} Dominic testified he lives on the west side of Cleveland. He said that on 

August 22, 2016, D.T. asked him to come with him and Daniel that evening to the 

Captains baseball game at Eastlake Park. Antoinette picked up Dominic because his 

driver’s license had expired, and dropped him off at Daniel’s house in Willoughby at 

about 7:00 p.m. Before leaving for the game, Dominic had a beer at Daniel’s house. 

{¶5} Dominic said that he and D.T. walked around the stadium most of the 

game, while Daniel watched the game from his stadium seat. D.T. is a hyperactive 

child with autism. Dominic said it was Dollar Beer Night. Daniel gave D.T. $10 to $12 

for refreshments, and, according to Dominic, D.T. used it to buy him beers throughout 

the game. Dominic said that, by the end of the game, he was “buzzed.” Daniel said 

that Dominic had ten to 12 beers at the stadium; that he was not walking steadily; and 

that his speech was slurred. 

{¶6} After the game, Dominic and D.T. met up with Daniel and they got in his 

car. D.T. called Antoinette and asked her to come to Daniel’s house to pick up Dominic. 

{¶7} Daniel said that when the three of them arrived at his house, he made 

them a pizza. Dominic said that, while waiting for the pizza, he had a beer. Daniel said 
 3

that D.T. was tired, hungry, and “acting out.” He said Dominic and D.T. were arguing 

with each other and both were agitated, and he tried to calm them down. 

{¶8} Daniel said that a short time later, Antoinette came over and they visited. 

D.T. was running around the house and, at about 10:30 p.m., he ran in the bathroom 

and started vomiting. It is at this point that the witnesses disagree as to what occurred. 

{¶9} Dominic said Antoinette got up to check on D.T. She went in the hallway. 

Daniel, who was also in the hallway, put out his hand and said “no, he’s okay." 

Antoinette insisted on going in the bathroom to check on him. The trial court noted that 

Dominic testified, “with much dramatic flair,” that Daniel grabbed Antoinette, bounced 

her off the wall in the hallway, and threw her to the right. 

{¶10} Antoinette’s version was even more dramatic. She said D.T. started to 

cough and choke and ran into the bathroom. She went down the hallway to the 

bathroom to help him. She said Daniel was in the hall; said “no;” and slammed the door 

shut. She said she continued going forward and Daniel hit her on her shoulder “really 

hard” with an open hand; grasped her bra strap and shirt; and, while she was dangling 

in the air, threw her against the wall. 

{¶11} Daniel testified that when he heard D.T. throwing up in the bathroom, he 

headed for the bathroom to help him. He said that as Antoinette was walking toward 

the bathroom, he put his arm under her upper arm and said, “Don’t go in there” because 

D.T. was throwing up. He said, “I’ll take care of it.” Daniel said Antoinette became 

argumentative. He escorted her to the front door and said she should take Dominic 

home. 

{¶12} Daniel went in the bathroom. He said that D.T. was vomiting, but not 

choking. Daniel said he patted D.T. on the back and, in a few minutes, he was fine. 
 4

Daniel said that D.T. often throws up when he is upset. D.T. then left the bathroom and 

Daniel cleaned up the floor. 

{¶13} Daniel came out of the bathroom and again told Antoinette to take her 

brother home. Dominic said that things did not escalate any further. He said that when 

he left the house, he shook hands with Daniel and took another beer. Daniel said he 

thought the evening ended “on an amicable note.” Daniel denied pushing Antoinette 

against the wall or any other violence. 

{¶14} Dominic said that Antoinette did not go to the police station or to the 

hospital that night. 

{¶15} Antoinette testified that on the following morning, August 23, 2016, she 

went to the Willoughby Police Station and made a police report against Daniel. She 

said the police noticed she was in pain and offered to get her an ambulance, but she 

refused. She said she waited so long to go to the police department because she was 

hoping Daniel would apologize, but he did not. She said she would not have gone to 

the police department if Daniel had just apologized. 

{¶16} Antoinette said that at about 1:30 p.m. that day, she went to the hospital 

for treatment. She said the hospital gave her a sling, prescribed pain medication for 

her, and told her she had a shoulder strain. She admitted her discharge instructions 

told her to follow up with a doctor, but she said she never did and did not seek any 

further treatment. 

{¶17} Willoughby Police Officer Kevin Rastall identified his police report, which 

stated that “Antoinette had no visible injuries to her shoulder.” He testified he did not 

see any injuries on her shoulder. Officer Rastall said he later called Daniel and asked 
 5

him to come in for a written statement and he complied. Daniel was only charged with 

disorderly conduct, and the case was dismissed after the pretrial. 

{¶18} The trial court issued a highly-detailed, four-page judgment entry 

concluding that Antoinette had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a 

full hearing protection order should be issued and terminating the ex parte order. In its 

entry, the trial court made the following findings regarding the witnesses’ credibility: 

{¶19} Based upon the foregoing testimony adduced during the hearing, 

the Court finds [Antoinette] and her brother’s recollections of the 

August 22, 2016 incident differ significantly. It is undisputed by 

[Dominic’s] own testimony he was drinking beer before the ball 

game, during the ball game, after the ball game, and on his way out 

of [Daniel’s] house. His testimony is questionable as to what he 

saw or if he was even in a position to have witnessed anything. * * * 

In addition, the Court finds [Daniel’s] testimony in the transcript 

credible. 

{¶20} Antoinette appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following for 

her sole assignment of error: 

{¶21} “The trial court committed error by ruling that the petitioner did not meet 

the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in dismissing her protection 

order.” 

{¶22} While Antoinette’s assignment of error suggests the court erred in finding 

she failed to present sufficient evidence, she argues that the court’s judgment was 

against the manifest weight of the evidence because her and Dominic’s testimony was 

more credible than Daniel’s. She also argues the court erred in finding Dominic was not 

credible. 

{¶23} This court has repeatedly held, “‘[t]he decision to issue a civil protection 

order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Nicola v. Nicola, 11th Dist. Lake 

No. 2015-L-057, 2015-Ohio-4017, ¶23, quoting Hoyt v. Heindell, 191 Ohio App.3d 373, 
 6

2010-Ohio-6058, ¶39 (11th Dist.) (citing other cases so holding). “Absent an abuse of 

that discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s judgment.” Hoyt, supra. 

{¶24} We note that other Ohio Appellate Districts apply the manifest-weight 

standard of review. E.g., Blocker v. Carron, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 10AP110042, 

2011-Ohio-3673, ¶6. Still other Districts apply the abuse-of-discretion standard to 

challenges to the scope of the order and the manifest-weight standard to challenges to 

the issuance of the order. E.g., McBride v. McBride, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-03-

061, 2012-Ohio-2146, ¶10. 

{¶25} “When granting a protection order, the trial court must find that petitioner 

has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or petitioner’s family or 

household members are in danger of domestic violence.” Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio 

St.3d 34 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. R.C. 3113.31(A)(1) defines “domestic 

violence” as: “(1) * * * the occurrence of one or more of the following acts against a 

family or household member: (a) Attempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury 

* * *.” 

{¶26} As noted above, Antoinette argues the court’s judgment was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. “[A]n appellate court will not reverse a judgment as 

being contrary to the weight of the evidence as long as there is some competent, 

credible evidence supporting the judgment.” In re Kangas, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 

2006-A-0084, 2007-Ohio-1921, ¶81. The manifest-weight standard of review is the 

same in a civil case as in a criminal case. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 

2012-Ohio-2179, ¶17. 

{¶27} When applying the manifest-weight standard of review, the reviewing court 

reviews the entire record, “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 
 7

considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in 

the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest 

miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” 

Eastley, supra, ¶20, quoting Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th 

Dist.2001). “The finder of fact is entitled to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of 

any witness.” River Oaks Homes, Inc. v. Twin Vinyl, Inc., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L117, 2008-Ohio-4301, ¶27. 

{¶28} “Under the manifest weight standard of review, we are ‘guided by a 

presumption’ that the fact-finder’s findings are correct.” Terry v. Kellstone, Inc., 6th Dist. 

Erie No. E-12-061, 2013-Ohio-4419, ¶13, citing Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 

Ohio St.3d 77, 79-80 (1984). See also Eastley at ¶21. We must make “‘every 

reasonable presumption * * * in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.’” Id., 

quoting Seasons Coal Co. at 80, fn. 3. “‘If the evidence is susceptible of more than one 

construction,’” we are “‘bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the * * 

* judgment [and] most favorable to sustaining the * * * judgment.’” Eastley, supra, 

quoting Seasons Coal Co., supra. 

{¶29} We note that Antoinette does not reference any inconsistencies in Daniel’s 

testimony or give any other reasons to support her argument that she and Dominic were 

more credible than Daniel. Instead, she merely asks this court to compare her and 

Dominic’s testimony to that of Daniel. However, it is not this court’s function to comb 

the record to search for evidence supporting a party’s argument. 

{¶30} The witnesses obviously disagreed as to what happened in Daniel’s home 

that night. In determining their credibility, the trial court was entitled to consider, among 

other things, that Dominic was drinking beer the entire evening so that, by his own 
 8

admission, by the time he left the park, he was buzzed. And, although Antoinette said 

Daniel hit her on her shoulder “real hard;” picked her up; and threw her against the wall, 

the officer saw no injury; Antoinette sought no follow-up treatment; and she said she 

would not have even gone to the police department if Daniel had apologized. 

{¶31} In denying Antoinette’s petition for a civil protection order, the trial court 

obviously found that Daniel was more credible than Antoinette and Dominic and that 

Antoinette failed to present any competent, credible evidence that Daniel attempted to 

cause or recklessly caused her bodily injury. The trial court was in the best position to 

view the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony. We cannot say the trial 

court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, because the 

record contains evidence, which, if believed, supported the court’s denial of Antoinette’s 

petition, the court’s judgment was not an abuse of discretion. 

{¶32} For the reasons stated in this opinion, Antoinette’s assignment of error is 

overruled. It is the order and judgment of this court that the judgment of the Lake 

County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.