Opinion ID: 2586077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mutual Restraining Order

Text: Hora also challenges the mutual restraining order entered by Judge Suddock in the divorce proceeding, contending that the court had no basis to impose any restraint against her. Under Siggelkow v. State, where an independent basis exists for a restraining order, it may issue pursuant to the court's equitable power. [23] However, the court may not issue an order merely because the parties are before it in a divorce action. [24] Because this is a mutual order, there must be an independent basis for the order against each party. Judge Suddock's basis for the mutual restraining order was that [b]oth parties have expressed a concern for their safety from the other party. There has been a high level of animosity and distrust exhibited throughout the litigation. In our view, an expression of concern by the parties is insufficient to establish an independent basis for the order. A more specific factual basis was required to support Cooper's belief that there will be future acts of harassment or contact by Hora. Judge Suddock noted that Hora had done nothing that would justify [Cooper] from having concern about physical violence. Likewise, a general acknowledgment of animosity and distrust during a divorce is insufficient to establish an independent basis for the order. [25] We conclude that because the order lacked an independent basis, it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order.