Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kerry G. v. Stacy C.

Court of Appeals of Kansas

January 5, 2018

Kerry G., Appellee,
v.
Stacy C., Appellant.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1. A court will consider a moot issue if the issue is one capable of repetition and one of public importance.

         2. A motion filed under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) to extend a protection from abuse (PFA) order for one year must set forth with particularity the grounds for seeking the order.

         3. A motion filed under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) to extend a PFA order for one year must be served on the defendant. Once served, the defendant has seven days to respond.

         4. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) does not require that the court conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the PFA order should be extended for one year. But either party may request oral argument on the motion.

         5. Any decision by the court to extend a PFA order for one year under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) must be based on good cause shown and be reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff.

         6. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) is not void for vagueness.

         7. A court's failure to exercise its discretionary authority is an abuse of discretion.

         Appeal from Harvey District Court; Stephen A. Hilgers, magistrate judge.

          Mary A. McDonald, of McDonald Law LLC, of Newton, for appellant.

         No appearance by appellee.

          Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Leben and Powell, JJ.

          ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J.

         Upon motion of a plaintiff, a district court may extend a protection from abuse (PFA) order for one year. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1). The issue presented in this case is determining what process is due to a defendant when a plaintiff files a request for the statutorily allowed extension of the PFA order. Here, the district court granted Kerry's request for a one-year extension of a PFA order against Stacy without making any factual findings, and without giving Stacy notice or a hearing. Stacy appeals contending: (1) the district court violated his due process rights by not giving him notice or an opportunity to be heard before extending the PFA order; (2) K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) is void for vagueness; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in extending the PFA order.

         Because we find that the district court violated Stacy's statutory right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before issuing the order extending the PFA order for one year, we reverse the district court's order and vacate it.

         Factual and Procedural History

         Kerry and Stacy were in a dating relationship. After a series of incidents in which Kerry alleged that Stacy engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact with her, she reported him to the police. Police filed charges against Stacy in March 2015. In July 2015, Kerry filed a petition for a PFA order against Stacy. Kerry asserted that Stacy attempted to directly or indirectly contact her after charges were brought against him. These attempts included contacting Kerry's friends, following her to her house at 12:30 in the morning, parking in front of her place of employment, and standing at the back door of her place of employment. The district court granted Kerry a temporary PFA order and scheduled a hearing on the issue.

         Following the hearing, the district court entered a final PFA order. The order was to be in effect until October 13, 2016. The order stated that "[t]his Final order of Protection from Abuse may be extended for additional periods of time upon motion of the plaintiff. Violation of this order could result in the order being extended for up to the lifetime of the defendant." Stacy appealed the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.