Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KATHRYN D. SCHMIDT Burke Costanza & Cuppy, LLP Merrillville, Indiana

FILED
Dec 07 2010, 10:16 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PAUL SCHULZ, Appellant-Respondent, vs. KAREN SPOOR, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 64A03-1005-PO-316

APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mary R. Harper, Judge Cause No. 64D05-1004-PO-3380

December 7, 2010

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge

Paul Schulz appeals the trial courts order of protection against him pursuant to a petition filed by Karen Spoor. Schulz raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial courts order of protection. We affirm. The facts most favorable to the order granting protection follow. Schulz and Spoor first met in high school about twenty years ago and were acquaintances at that time. Around fourteen or fifteen years ago, Spoor introduced Schulz to a girlfriend of hers, and Schulz and the friend dated for years. In April or May of 2009, Schulz and the friend ended their relationship, and in June 2009 Schulz sent Spoor a card asking " [h]ow have you been lately," and that "Id like to talk with you . . . sometime." Transcript at 8. At that time, Schulz and Spoor had not spoken for about six years. Spoor did not want to get "in the middle of something" and chose not to respond. Id. In November 2009, Schulz sent a bottle of wine to Spoors house and another bottle of wine to her mothers house. Schulz personally delivered the bottle of wine to the house of Spoors mother, and at the door he was greeted by Spoors brother, Matthew Gill. After Matthew spoke with Schulz, he sent Spoor a text message containing a picture of Schulz and saying that "[t]his guy was here, and he says he loves you. He sent you wine." Id. at 12. Spoor sent a Christmas card to Schulz in which she thanked him for the wine because she had for the past fifteen years sent cards to Schulz and her friend as a couple and was "thinking were friends, were acquaintances, you know, this is what people do . 2

. . it might be the only contact they have all year." Id. at 11. In the card, Spoor also indicated to Schulz that she did not "want to be involved" with the breakup between Schulz and Spoors girlfriend. Id. at 16. Spoor received mail from Schulz "in bulk quantities" and in "handfuls" which "did freak [her] out," and her brothers were receiving emails from Schulz during the same time period. Id. at 8, 12. On March 3, 2010, Schulz sent an email via Facebook to both Spoors brother Roger and her twin brother regarding a cousin of Spoors who had been murdered "20-some years ago." Id. at 7. The email stated that Schulz: [H]ad a conversation with [Rogers] brother Allen recently. I looked at the microfilm of the Post Tribune and Hammond Times March 4, 1989 yesterday. So much more could be said. I thought that it may be inappropriate to send a message like this to [Spoor]. Although I have only heard of you, and that we dont know each other, you may like to see some of my photos.[1] Petitioners Exhibit 1. On March 13, 2010, Schulz phoned Spoors house and spoke with her husband. Schulz told Spoors husband that he had dated Spoor five years ago, which was untrue. On March 28, 2010, Matthew Gill, by counsel, sent an email to Schulz stating "that you cease and desist immediately or you will be held liable for legal matters . . . . If you

Schulz explained at the hearing that the photos he was referencing were his "photos on Facebook. . . . Those photos were photos of me on vacation around North America. . . . Over 1200 of them. And I just thought that the brother might like to see those photos on Facebook because both the brother Matt Gill and [Spoor] were friends with me on Facebook." Transcript at 27.
1

3

contact [Matthews] family again and/or [Spoor] and/or her husband and/or brothers we will have no choice but to take further legal action . . . ." Transcript at 18. On April 1, 2010, Spoor filed a petition for an order for protection and request for a hearing against Schulz and alleged that she had been the victim of stalking. In her petition, Spoor made allegations regarding the wine delivery, the phone call to her house, and that Schulz had sent many letters and documents regarding his breakup with Spoors girlfriend, had sent "emails via Facebook to [her] family that does not know him," and had sent a document relating to a recent arrest for disorderly conduct. Appellants Appendix at 10. That same day, the trial court granted her petition pursuant to an ex

parte order for protection. The court held a protective order hearing on April 30, 2010, at which Schulz and Spoor both appeared pro se. After the parties were sworn, Spoor was given the first "opportunity to address the situation." Transcript at 4. Spoor testified to facts consistent with the foregoing and that Schulz is "preoccupied" with her, and that she was frightened for her and for her family because "hes contacted several of my older brothers." Id. at 9. Spoor testified that "I feel like Im being pulled into the middle" of Schulzs breakup and that "a lot of times thats the person who gets

Download Paul Schulz v. Karen Spoor.pdf

Indiana Law