Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

G. Allen Lidy

Lidy Law, PC

Mooresville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Raj Kumar Lall,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

K.M.,

Appellee-Petitioner.

March 26, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-PO-1812

Appeal from the 

Hamilton Superior Court

The Honorable 

William J. Hughes, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D03-1905-PO-4888

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Raj Kumar Lall (“Lall”) appeals the trial court’s entry of a protective order 

issued against him and in favor of K.M. He raises the following restated issue 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 2 of 8

on appeal: whether K.M. presented sufficient evidence to support the trial 

court’s issuance of a protective order against Lall. 

[2] We vacate and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 23, 2019, K.M. filed a petition for an order for protection. Appellant’s 

Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 5-11. The trial court granted an ex parte order on May 24, 

2019. Id. at 12-14. Lall requested an evidentiary hearing, and, on July 12, 

2019, the trial court held a hearing in this matter. Id. at 15-16. On July 12, 

2019, the trial court issued a permanent order of protection. The entirety of that 

order states:

FINDINGS

This matter having been heard by the Court on 7/12/2019 

pursuant to Indiana Code [section] 34-26-5-10. The Court now

makes the following Findings:

a. Raj Kumar Lall filed a timely Request for Hearing pursuant to 

Indiana Code [section] 34-26-5-10(a); and/or,

b. The Court is required to hold a hearing pursuant to Indiana 

Code [section] 34-26-5-10(b).

c. The Petitioner was present at the hearing and the Respondent 

was present.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 3 of 8

d. This order does not protect an intimate partner or child.

e The Respondent had notice and an opportunity to be heard.

f. The Respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of the 

Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner’s household.

g. The Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that stalking has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of this 

Order.

h. The Respondent does not agree to the issuance of the Order 

for Protection.

i. The following relief is necessary to bring about a cessation of 

the violence or the threat of violence.

ORDER

Section 1 - General Provisions

1. The Respondent is hereby enjoined from threatening to 

commit or committing acts of stalking against the Petitioner and 

the following designated family or household members, if any: 

[R.C.]; [A.M.]

2. The Respondent is prohibited from harassing, annoying, 

telephoning, contacting, or directly or indirectly communicating 

with the Petitioner.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 4 of 8

3. . . . 

4. The Respondent is ordered to stay away from the residence of 

the Petitioner.

Id. at 18-20. Lall now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] We begin by noting that K.M. has not filed an appellee’s brief. When an 

appellee fails to file a brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an 

argument on the appellee’s behalf. C.V. v. C.R., 64 N.E.3d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2016). Instead, applying a less stringent standard of review, we may 

reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant can prove a case of prima facie

error. Id. “Prima facie error in this context is defined as, ‘at first sight, on first 

appearance, or on the face of it.’” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 

1068 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1999)).

[5] Lall contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance of the

protective order against him and in favor of K.M. He asserts that the three 

“incidents” referenced in K.M.’s petition for order of protection were not 

supported by the evidence at trial. Lall further argues that Exhibits 1 and 8, 

which were admitted by K.M. at the hearing, contain only a single 

communication from Lall to K.M., made at the same time in 2018, and the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 5 of 8

communication was not sufficient evidence of stalking. Lastly, he maintains 

that K.M.’s testimony at the hearing did not prove stalking, and his testimony 

at the hearing refuted K.M.’s claim of stalking. 

[6] The Indiana Civil Protection Order Act was designed to promote protection 

and safety for all victims of domestic or family violence and victims of 

harassment in a fair, prompt, and effective manner and to prevent future 

domestic and family violence and harassment. Ind. Code § 34-26-5-1. 

“Protective orders are similar to injunctions, and therefore in granting an order 

the trial court must sua sponte make special findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon.” Fox v. Bonam, 45 N.E.3d 794, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing 

Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)). Similarly, 

Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 52(A) states, “[t]he court shall make special 

findings of fact without request (1) in granting or refusing preliminary 

injunctions . . . .” We apply a two-tiered standard of review: we first determine 

whether the evidence supports the findings, and then we determine whether the 

findings support the order. Fox, 45 N.E.3d at 798. In deference to the trial 

court’s proximity to the issues, we disturb the order only where there is no 

evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the order. Koch 

Dev. Corp. v. Koch, 996 N.E.2d 358, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. We 

do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility, and we consider only 

the evidence favorable to the trial court’s order. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 6 of 8

[7] This court has noted the “‘significant ramifications of an improperly granted 

protective order.’” J.K. v. T.C., 25 N.E.3d 179, 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)

(quoting Barger v. Barger, 887 N.E.2d 990, 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). “For 

example, at the state level, violation of the trial court’s protective order is 

‘punishable by confinement in jail, prison, and/or a fine.’ [Ind. Code] § 34-26-

5-3. . . . Thus, an improperly granted protective order may pose a considerable 

threat to the respondent’s liberty.” Id.

[8] In order for a trial court to issue a protective order, the petitioner must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence that stalking has occurred. C.V., 64 N.E.3d at 

853; Ind. Code § 34-26-5-2(a)(2) (allowing a petitioner to file a petition for a 

protective order against a “person who has committed stalking”). Indiana law 

defines “stalking” as “‘a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving 

repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a 

reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and

that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or 

threatened.’” Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

(quoting Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1) (emphasis added).

[9] Here, the trial court did not issue its own specific findings based on the evidence 

presented during the contested hearing. Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 18-20. 

The order contained no findings as to how the evidence presented supported 

that there was “‘a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 7 of 8

repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a 

reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and

that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or 

threatened.’” See Maurer, 994 N.E.2d at 757. Instead, it merely quoted the 

sparse findings from the earlier temporary, ex parte order of protection, which 

stated: 

a. The Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that stalking has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of this

Order.

b. This order does not protect an intimate partner or child.

c. The Respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of the

Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner’s household.

d. The following relief is necessary to bring about a cessation of

the violence or the threat of violence.

Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 13. As such, we conclude the trial court’s July 12, 

2019 order does not comply with the requirements of Indiana Rule of Trial 

Procedure 52(A) or Indiana case law. We, therefore, vacate the order and

remand this matter with instructions for the trial court to issue findings of fact 

and conclusions thereon consistent with that authority. 

[10] Vacated and remanded with instructions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PO-1812 | March 26, 2020 Page 8 of 8

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J. concur.