Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                     This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 10, 2005
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                    Cornelia G. Clark                                                petition to review an adverse decision by the
                                                                                    Clerk of Court of Appeals                                        Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                     and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                     Cir. Ct. No.   04CV000444
Appeal No.                                                                          04-2316
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                   IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                                                                                     DISTRICT III
CYNTHIA L. HOFF,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V.
RICHARD H. GOLDE,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Eau Claire County:
PAUL J. LENZ, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Deininger, P.J., Dykman and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1                                                                                  PER CURIAM.    Richard Golde appeals an order granting Cynthia
Hoff’s petition for a domestic abuse injunction.   The issue is whether the trial
court properly granted an injunction based on the same evidence of domestic
abuse used to grant Hoff an injunction two years earlier.   We affirm.




No.   04-2316
¶2                                                                                             The trial court granted Hoff an injunction in July  2002 based on
evidence that Golde engaged in acts of domestic abuse during their relationship of
several years.   The injunction remained in effect until July 2004.
¶3                                                                                             Hoff sought continued protection by commencing this proceeding,
although she did not allege Golde had abused her after the court issued the first
injunction.   She stated, however, she believed she remained in danger because
Golde often drove by her place of work, a law enforcement officer had recently
interviewed  her  about  a  landlord-tenant  dispute  involving  Golde  and  she
anticipated testifying against him should he seek reinstatement of his chiropractic
license.1   Golde testified he had valid reasons to drive by Hoff’s workplace and the
trial court found no reason to believe Golde was doing so to harass her.
¶4                                                                                             The court nevertheless granted the injunction based on the  prior
abusive conduct established in the July 2002 proceeding, and its conclusion that a
potential danger of abuse remained because Hoff might someday testify against
him.    The  court  added  that  the  potential  danger  was  not  the  product  of  the
domestic relationship but of the “knowledge relationship,” presumably meaning
Hoff’s knowledge of Golde’s chiropractic and other business affairs.
¶5                                                                                             WISCONSIN STAT. § 813.12(4)(a)3 (2003-04)2 provides that a judge
may  issue  a  domestic  abuse  injunction  upon  finding  “reasonable  grounds  to
believe that the respondent has engaged in, or based upon prior conduct of the
1  In  addition  to  their  domestic  relationship,  Hoff  once  worked  for  Golde  in  his
chiropractic clinic.
2  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise
noted.
2




No.   04-2316
petitioner and the respondent may engage in, domestic abuse of the petitioner.”
WISCONSIN  STAT.  § 813.12(4)(aj)  directs  the  judge  to  “consider  the  potential
danger posed to the petitioner and the pattern of abusive conduct of the respondent
but may not base his or her decision solely on the length of time since the last
domestic abuse or the length of time since the relationship ended.”
¶6                                                                                            Golde argues that under the statutes quoted above, the circuit court
may issue only one injunction based on the same pattern of abusive conduct.   In
other words, without evidence of subsequent acts constituting domestic abuse,
injunctive  relief  is  only  available  to  the  petitioner,  in  Golde’s  view,  for  the
statutory time limit, which is now four years.   WIS. STAT. § 813.12 (4)(c).
¶7                                                                                            We reject Golde’s construction of WIS. STAT. §§ 813.12(4)(a)3 and
813.12(4)                                                                                     (aj).   If the words of the statute are plain and contain no ambiguity, we
apply their plain meaning.   See Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, ¶20,
260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656.   Here, the provision that “the judge … may not
base his or her decisions solely on the length of time since the last domestic abuse
or  the  length  of  time  since  the  relationship  ended”  has  only  one  reasonable
meaning: no matter how much time has expired, and regardless of intervening
circumstances, the court must consider past acts of domestic abuse in assessing the
potential  danger  of  future  abuse.    That  is  what  the  trial  court  did  here  and
reasonably  concluded  a  potential  danger  remained  given  Hoff’s  potential
involvement in Golde’s legal and business affairs.
¶8                                                                                            In so holding we note Golde’s argument that State v. Jankowski,
173 Wis. 2d 522, 496 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992), requires a different result.   In
Jankowski, we held that the circuit court could not extend a domestic abuse
injunction beyond the statutory limit, which was then two years from the date the
3




No.   04-2316
court granted it.   Id. at 527.     However, in so holding we construed a statute that
allowed  extensions  without  notice  to  the  respondent  and  Jankowski  in  fact
received neither notice nor a hearing before the court granted the extension.   Id. at
525-28.   Here, Hoff initiated a separate proceeding and provided notice to Golde.
He then received an evidentiary hearing on the petition.   Jankowski’s limit on
extending an injunction therefore does not apply
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
                                                                                         This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                                (b)5.
4

Download 7638.pdf

Wisconsin Law