Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves a dispute between neighbors Katherine Wehr Johnson (Appellee) and Dustin Faeder (Appellant) over an order of protection. Appellee alleged Appellant engaged in stalking and harassment through repeated acts of walking outside in revealing underwear near her residence, uninvited property intrusions by his dog, and confrontational behavior. A 2022 ex parte order of protection was granted and extended in 2024 and 2025 by the trial court, which found Appellant's conduct met the statutory definition of stalking. Appellant challenged the 2025 extension on procedural grounds (delay in ruling), statutory interpretation (no technical violation required for extension), and constitutional claims (First Amendment protections). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction and decision to extend the order based on Appellee's demonstrated fear of continued harassment.
Issues
- Whether the order of protection violated Appellant's constitutional rights.
- Whether the trial court's delay in issuing its final order following the hearing voided the jurisdiction to extend the order of protection for a period of one year pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 36-6-605(b).
- Whether the trial court acted within its discretion to extend the order of protection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 36-6-605(b).
Holdings
- The trial court's extension of the order of protection was valid, as Appellee demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant's actions constituted stalking. The court modified the order to prevent Appellant from parking any vehicle in front of Appellee's residence, addressing her fear of continued harassment.
- The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to extend the order of protection because the 53-day delay in issuing the order was within the permissible 60-day limit under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-9-506. The court emphasized that neither party filed a motion to expedite, so Appellant bears responsibility for the delay.
- Appellant's constitutional challenges to the order of protection are waived because he failed to develop his arguments or provide supporting authority. The court found his briefs insufficient under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 11 and applicable case law.
Remedies
- The trial court extended the initial order of protection for a period of one year following the hearing on December 18, 2023, issued on February 9, 2024. The extension was granted based on Appellee's proof of stalking by a preponderance of the evidence.
- On February 7, 2025, the trial court granted a one-year extension of the order of protection and modified the terms to prohibit Appellant from parking any vehicle or conveyance of any type in front of Appellee's home, regardless of ownership. This modification was made to address Appellee's continued fear of harassment and stalking, as the original order only restricted vehicles he owned or had an interest in.
Legal Principles
- The court employed the Purposive Approach when analyzing whether the trial court could extend the order of protection without a technical violation, emphasizing the statute's intent to prevent harm and protect victims from ongoing harassment or stalking behavior.
- The trial court's findings were upheld under the Standard of Proof of preponderance of evidence, as the appellate court concluded the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's determination that Appellee proved the need for an extension.
- The court clarified that the burden of proof for extending an order of protection requires the petitioner to prove the allegation of domestic abuse, stalking, or similar offenses by a preponderance of the evidence, not an immediate and present danger as required for ex parte orders.
- The court applied the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation to determine that Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605(b) does not prohibit taking a matter under advisement for up to 60 days, as permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-9-506 and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 11, § III(d).
Precedent Name
- Wadhani v. White
- Young v. Barrow
- Cardwell v. Hutchinson
- Poursaied v. Tenn. Bd. of Nursing
- Collins v. Pharris
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Ct.
- State v. Sprunger
- Vandergriff v. ParkRidge E. Hosp.
- Waters v. Farr
Cited Statute
- Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-9-506
- Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-315
- Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605
Judge Name
- W. Neal McBrayer
- D. Michael Swiney
- Valerie L. Smith
Passage Text
- We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Appellee proved by a preponderance of the evidence the need for an extension or modification of the order of protection.
- Contrary to Appellant's argument, the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b) does not include a prohibition against taking the matter under advisement for a period of time that is permissible pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-9-506. Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b) explicitly states that "Any ex parte order of protection must be in effect until the time of the hearing, and, if the hearing is held within fifteen (15) days of service of such order, then the ex parte order must continue in effect until the entry of any subsequent order of protection issued."
- The trial court modified the order of protection to restrain Appellant "from parking any vehicle or conveyance of any type in front of" Appellee's home. As any court with competent jurisdiction may modify the underlying order of protection, we conclude that modification was within the sound discretion of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(d).