Are in-laws considered cohabitants under Utah's protective order statute? Patole v. Marksberry Explained

Background and Facts

Sachin Patole sought a protective order against his father-in-law, Mark Marksberry, under Utah’s Cohabitant Abuse Act. The petition was based on several alleged incidents of abuse, including at least one occasion where Marksberry struck Patole in the face. During the evidentiary hearing, Marksberry appeared pro se and admitted to hitting Patole, stating he would sign a protective order. However, the trial court denied Patole’s petition, concluding that Patole and Marksberry were not cohabitants within the meaning of the statute and that there was insufficient evidence of abuse.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether a father-in-law and son-in-law are cohabitants under the Cohabitant Abuse Act, and (2) whether intentional striking constitutes abuse under the statute. The trial court had narrowed the statutory definition by requiring that the relationship cause the parties to “spend a considerable amount of time together,” effectively adding a judicial gloss to the legislative definition.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied plain error review and reversed on both issues. The court emphasized that the Cohabitant Abuse Act defines “cohabitant” broadly to include persons “related by blood or marriage.” Under this definition, a father-in-law is one of the closest possible relations through marriage, and the court rejected the trial court’s attempt to add limitations not found in the statute. Regarding the abuse element, the court found that intentional striking clearly constitutes physical harm under the Act, satisfying all three required elements: cohabitant status, intentional act, and physical harm.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners should apply the statutory definition of cohabitant literally without adding judicial limitations. The Cohabitant Abuse Act intentionally broadens protection beyond traditional cohabiting relationships to include various family relationships. When advising clients on protective order eligibility, attorneys should consider the full scope of relationships covered by the statute, including in-laws, step-relatives, and other family connections established through marriage or blood.