Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

FILED
May 26 2011, 9:34 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GEORGE P. GALANOS Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: THOMAS E. RUCINSKI ANDREW P. MARTIN Sachs & Hess, P.C. St. John, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DENNIS MYSLIWY, Appellant-Respondent, vs. TERESA MYSLIWY, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 45A03-1009-PO-548

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Lorenzo Arredondo, Judge The Honorable Cheryl Williamson, Magistrate Cause No. 45C01-1005-PO-170

May 26, 2011 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Respondent, Dennis Mysliwy (Dennis), appeals the trial courts issuance of a protective order against him in favor of Appellee-Petitioner, Teresa Mysliwy (Teresa). We affirm. ISSUE Dennis raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as the following: Whether there was sufficient evidence to issue a protective order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Dennis and Teresas marriage was dissolved on February 24, 2010. Pursuant to the divorce decree, Teresa had physical custody of their two children. On May 10-11, 2010, Teresa was scheduled to be out of town for work, so the children stayed with Dennis. At some point during her trip, Teresa received a call from her housekeeper informing Teresa that there was water in her basement. Upon arriving home, there was no evidence of a forced entry and nothing appeared to have been stolen, including $2,000 cash she had in her bedroom. Teresa went to the basement and discovered a large puddle of water on the floor near the water heater, which she recently had installed. She then realized that the leak was coming from the pipe leading to the bathtub upstairs. Teresa called Tiger Plumbing and they scheduled a plumber to come the next day. Later that evening, as Teresa sat down on her leather sofa, she noticed that there was a slit in one of the cushions. At that point, she did not believe that the leaking pipe and damaged cushion were related. 2

The following day, David Prutsman (Prutsman) of Tiger Plumbing went to Teresas house to fix the plumbing issue. While in the basement, Prutsman used a ladder to look at the pipes and discovered that a hole had been drilled in the PVC drain pipe. Teresa typically stored the ladder in the garage, but for some reason, it was in the basement that day. After discussing the damages with Teresa, Prutsman asked her "Who hates you enough to do this?" (Transcript p. 31). Teresa then started to become "very shaky and [] worried about what was going on in [her] house." (Tr. p. 31). She went back upstairs, reexamined her sofa, and noticed more damage. She stated that it looked as if "someone had [taken] a utility knife and just slashed [the sofa] up." (Tr. p. 31). Soon thereafter, Teresa noticed that her home was without heat. She went into her basement to examine her furnace, which she had serviced prior to winter. Teresa

immediately noticed that the bottom panel to the furnace was loose and when she lifted the panel up, the inside of her furnace was burnt, and the wires looked as though they had been cut with wire cutters. Teresa called a company to come service her furnace. The next day, Jeffery Nelson (Nelson) of Meyer Heating and Air Conditioning, responded to Teresas service call to repair the furnace. Upon arrival, Nelson removed the circuit board and saw that the front side was severely burned, which "seem[ed] odd to [him] because [it was] all low voltage wiring" and the type of burns on the board generally do not occur on the front of the board where the low voltage wiring is located. (Appellants Exh. p. 6). Based on the damage, Nelson concluded that there had been "some vandalism done in the house." (Appellants Exh. p. 8). Teresa also noticed bleach 3

spots on the carpet leading from the foyer to the stairs. Additionally, many of the clothes in her closet had been sprayed with bleach and had been slashed with a utility knife. However, none of the childrens clothing had been damaged. On May 18, 2010, Teresa filed a petition for an order for protection against Dennis and request for a hearing, which was set for September 3, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court, noting that Dennis is a mechanical engineer and had the "knowledge and ability to perform these acts[,]" issued a protective order and stated that "domestic or family violence or stalking has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of this [protective] order." (Tr. p. 129). The protective order stated the following, in relevant part: 2. The Respondent is prohibited from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or directly or indirectly communicating with the Petitioner, except: EXCEPT TELEPHONICALLY OR E-MAIL ONLY RE: CHILD RELATED ISSUES OR THROUGH ATTORNEYS GAL OR MEDIATOR IN DIVORCE CASE OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNICATION SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED IN THE DIVORCE CASE []. (Appellants App. p. 23). Dennis was also ordered to stay away from Teresas home and her place of employment. Dennis now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. DISCUSSION AND DECISION I. Standard of Review Generally, when, as here, a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), we apply a two-tiered standard of review; first, 4

we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Davis v. Davis, 889 N.E.2d 374, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In deference to the trial courts proximity to the issues, we disturb the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, but consider only the evidence favorable to the trial courts judgment. Id. Those appealing the trial courts judgment must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. We do not defer to conclusions of law, however, and evaluate them de novo. Id. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Dennis argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the issuance of the protective order. Specifically, he argues that there is no evidence in the record to

demonstrate that he committed domestic or family violence or stalking. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an order of protection, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Civil orders for protection are governed by the Civil Protection Order Act (CPOA). We have observed that "our legislature has dictated that the CPOA shall be construed to promote the: (1) protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and (2) prevention of future domestic and family violence." Aiken v. Stanley, 816 N.E.2d 427, 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

5

(a) A person who is or has been a victim of domestic or family violence may file a petition for an order of protection against a: (1) family or household member who commits an act of domestic or family violence; or (2) person who has committed stalking under [I.C.

Download Dennis Mysliwy v. Teresa Mysliwy.pdf

Indiana Law