What standard applies when evaluating domestic protective order petitions under Utah's Cohabitant Abuse Act? Meyer v. Aposhian Explained

In Meyer v. Aposhian, the Utah Court of Appeals examined the evidentiary standards required for obtaining a protective order under Utah’s Cohabitant Abuse Act, providing important guidance for practitioners handling domestic violence cases.

Background and Facts

Natalie Meyer sought a protective order against her ex-husband following a series of encounters that culminated in May 2013 when he drove a military-style truck through their neighborhood and backed it into Meyer’s driveway. Meyer testified that she feared for her safety and experienced emotional distress, while her ex-husband claimed he was merely turning the truck around and celebrating a holiday weekend with neighborhood friends. The incident led to police involvement and Meyer’s current husband obtaining a separate civil stalking injunction.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on whether Meyer proved she was subjected to domestic violence under the Act, specifically whether her ex-husband’s conduct constituted stalking. The court had to determine the proper application of the “reasonable person” standard and whether Meyer’s claimed emotional distress met the statutory threshold for significant emotional distress.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial, emphasizing that stalking requires an individualized objective standard that considers the victim’s circumstances while avoiding purely subjective analysis. The court explained that judges must evaluate whether “the course of conduct considered in the context of the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety.” Importantly, the court noted that credibility determinations are within the trial court’s province, and contentious divorces alone do not transform every unpleasant interaction into potential stalking.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that practitioners must present evidence demonstrating how a reasonable person in the petitioner’s specific circumstances would react to the alleged conduct. The court’s analysis reinforces that preservation of arguments remains critical, as Meyer’s challenge to the emotional distress standard was deemed unpreserved. For protective order cases, attorneys should focus on objective evidence rather than solely subjective claims of distress.