Opinion ID: 6335806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: This case involves the renewal, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924(3)(b) (Cum. Supp. 2020), of a domestic abuse protection order issued on March 18, 2020. The order was against Logan M. Otto II. The protected party was his former spouse, Margaret L. Garrison. 1. Underlying Order The underlying domestic abuse protection order in this case was originally issued ex parte, upon a finding that Garrison had stated facts showing Otto attempted to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused, bodily injury to Garrison; or that he had, by means of credible threat, placed Garrison in fear of bodily injury. Further, the court found it reasonably appeared from the specific facts included in the affidavit that Garrison would be in immediate danger of abuse before the matter could be heard on notice. The petition and affidavit had described as the most recent and severe incident of abuse Otto’s actions occurring on February 26, 2020, in a parking lot after a court hearing involving a dispute between Garrison and Otto. Garrison averred that Otto was exiting the lot in his vehicle, when he sped up and - 97 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v. OTTO Cite as 311 Neb. 94 swerved toward Garrison, who was walking with her husband to her car. Garrison described that she was almost hit, but that her husband grabbed her arm to remove her from the vehicle’s path. Attached photographs showed skid marks in the lot. The petition and affidavit also described, over the course of the preceding 7 years, other acts of violence, prior assault charges against Otto, and other protection orders against Otto. Otto contested the ex parte order, and a hearing was held in which Otto claimed, among other things, that he did not know Garrison and her husband were in the lot on February 26, 2020. Otto testified he had been driving slowly while on his cell phone and swerved away when he noticed two pedestrians, who ended up being Garrison and her husband. Otto also testified that the tire tracks in the photograph did not resemble tracks his tires could make. The district court found from the credible evidence adduced that the March 18, 2020, order should be affirmed. Otto appealed the district court’s decision affirming the March 18, 2020, ex parte domestic abuse protection order, arguing there was insufficient evidence of abuse or likelihood of future harm. In a two-paragraph opinion, we affirmed the district court’s decision. 1 2. Renewal (a) Petition On March 17, 2021, Garrison filed a petition and affidavit to renew the domestic abuse and protection order. Garrison averred that she and Otto have had ongoing proceedings in district court since 2009, stemming from their divorce. She generally asserted there was a long history of abuse by Otto of herself, their children, and her husband, as well as a violation by Otto of another harassment protection order in the past. Garrison averred that she feared for the safety of everyone in her household. 1 Garrison v. Otto, 308 Neb. 372, 953 N.W.2d 568 (2021). - 98 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v. OTTO Cite as 311 Neb. 94 (b) Ex Parte Order The court issued an ex parte renewal of the ex parte domestic protection order, effective for 1 year from March 19, 2021. In so ordering, the court found that Garrison had stated facts showing Otto had attempted to cause, or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had caused, bodily injury to Garrison and by means of credible threat had placed her in fear of bodily injury. Further, the court found it reasonably appeared from the specific facts included in the affidavit that Garrison would be in immediate danger of abuse before the matter could be heard on notice. (c) Hearing Otto contested the ex parte renewal and requested a hearing. At the hearing, Garrison again gave her version of the incident in the parking lot, which occurred directly after a court hearing in which the court ruled Otto would not have his parenting time “renewed.” Garrison testified that she still felt her life was in danger from Otto. Otto also testified at the hearing. He again denied trying to hit or scare Garrison with his vehicle. He presented pictures of the tires on the vehicle he was driving and asserted that the tracks in the photograph that had been submitted were not from his vehicle. He acknowledged he had presented this same evidence at the hearing on the original protection order. Otto also generally testified that he had a positive relationship with his children and has historically tried to avoid interacting with Garrison. Otto testified that he has had 551 days of parenting time suspended since October 2019, with the exception of his parenting time with his then 14-year-old son. During that time of suspended parenting time, he has had only limited visitation in public places with his other children, during which the youngest child misbehaved. Otto testified that his children’s behavior has deteriorated while his parenting time has been suspended. - 99 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v. OTTO Cite as 311 Neb. 94 Otto’s wife testified that Otto is very careful to avoid having any contact with Garrison at public sporting events the children participate in, which both they and Garrison attend. (d) May 10, 2021, Order In an order on May 10, 2021, the court affirmed the ex parte renewal of the domestic abuse protection order and ordered it remain in effect. The court concluded that a violation of the initial order was not a prerequisite for a renewal, noting that no such requirement is found in the statutes and that it would undermine the goal of domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims of domestic abuse from further harm. The court also concluded that although the remoteness of the past abuse is a matter for the court to consider, the occurrence of additional acts of abuse since the original protection order is not a legal prerequisite for its renewal. Finally, the court concluded that the petitioner for a renewal of a domestic abuse protection order is not required at the hearing on renewal to reestablish the truth of all facts supporting the issuance of the initial order. Noting principles of the ­law-of-the-case doctrine, the court stated that a hearing on renewal “is not an opportunity to relitigate the initial protection order.” The petitioner must only establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the truth of the facts supporting renewal. Once that burden is met, explained the court, the burden shifts to the respondent to show why the protection order should not be renewed. The court took notice of the fact that it had already been determined that Garrison was a victim of domestic abuse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903(1) (Cum. Supp. 2020). The court found that Garrison had established by a preponderance of the evidence the truth of the facts supporting renewal and that Otto did not show cause as to why the protection order should not be renewed. More specifically, the court noted that the affidavit and Garrison’s testimony at the hearing provided the reasons she - 100 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v. OTTO Cite as 311 Neb. 94 sought renewal, additional events since the initial protection order was issued, that there have been no material changes in relevant circumstances, she remains fearful of Otto and feels her life is still in danger, and she was not requesting a modification of the prior order. The court found Garrison’s testimony at the hearing was credible and showed she has a present fear of future harm due to the history and pattern of such abuse to date. The court noted that Otto testified to numerous confrontations between Garrison and Otto over the last few years, but “despite the past conduct leading up to his testimony, future harm is unlikely and Garrison is trying to alienate him from his children.” The court generally observed that both parties took “detours” in their testimony into grievances from many years before and “squabbled” over matters pending before the court in other proceedings. The court stated that these detours showed that “the relevant circumstances since entry of the initial protection order certainly have not improved.” The court stated that it had considered the factors pertinent to the likelihood of future harm and that Otto had not met his burden of proof as to why the protection order should not remain in effect. The court summarized that Garrison had established by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a victim of domestic abuse as defined by § 42-903, that there has been no material change in relevant circumstances since entry of the initial protection order, that Garrison remains in fear for her safety now and in the future, and that renewal of the protection order is needed to prevent future harm. (e) Terminating Motion and Notices of Appeal On May 20, 2021, Otto filed a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend. Before the court ruled on the motion, however, Otto filed a notice of appeal on June 9, 2021. That appeal was docketed as case No. A-21-478. - 101 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v. OTTO Cite as 311 Neb. 94 The district court found that despite Otto’s notice of appeal, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020), it had jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial or to alter or amend. The court then denied the motion for new trial or to alter or amend. Otto filed another notice of appeal on August 4, 2021, docketed as case No. A-21-641. The Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals, and we moved them to our docket.