Sinclair v. Sinclair
Ohio Court of Appeals
914 N.E.2d 1084 (2009)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2008, Charles Sinclair (defendant) was arrested after a physical altercation with his wife, Tracy Sinclair (plaintiff). Shortly after Charles’s arrest, Tracy filed a petition for a civil protection order against Charles. The trial court issued an ex parte civil protection order. A hearing was then held by a county-court magistrate judge. At the hearing, Tracy sought a five-year civil protection order and testified that Charles had continuously physically and sexually abused her. Neither party mentioned that a divorce action was pending during the hearing. After the hearing, the magistrate judge recommended a six-month civil protection order. The magistrate judge based the recommendation on the ground that a divorce action was pending and, after the conclusion of the divorce action, the Sinclairs would have no reason to contact each other. Tracy appealed the recommendation, and the trial court considered the case. The trial court concluded that the magistrate judge was correct in determining that a five-year civil protection order was unnecessary because of the pending divorce action. However, the trial court extended the civil protection order to one year to ensure that it lasted until the divorce decree was finalized. Tracy appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McFarland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.