Utah Court of Appeals
Can a protective order be dismissed after two years if there's no physical violence? Card v. Card Explained
Summary
Devin Card appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a permanent protective order obtained by his ex-wife Aria Marshall in 2012, which had been in effect for more than two years. The district court found that Card had violated the protective order through harassing conduct including accessing Marshall’s banking information and demanding her physical presence at parent-time exchanges, and awarded sanctions against Card.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Card v. Card, Devin Card sought to dismiss a permanent protective order that his ex-wife Aria Marshall had obtained against him in 2012 based on allegations of physical violence and sexual assault. After the protective order had been in effect for more than two years, Card filed a motion under Utah Code section 78B-7-115, which permits dismissal of protective orders that have been in effect for at least two years if the court determines the petitioner no longer has a reasonable fear of future abuse.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues were whether the district court properly applied the statutory factors under section 78B-7-115 and whether the court correctly interpreted “abuse” to include harassment and intimidation, not just physical harm. Card argued the court improperly broadened the definition of abuse beyond the statute’s focus on physical harm.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard for the ultimate decision whether to dismiss the protective order, while reviewing statutory interpretation for correctness and factual findings for clear error. The court found that Card had violated the protective order through conduct including accessing Marshall’s banking information without consent, demanding her physical presence at parent-time exchanges, and hiring process servers to harass her. The district court properly considered the six statutory factors and found Card’s pattern of self-justified behavior was designed to harass and intimidate Marshall while walking “as close to the line” as possible without technically violating the order.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that courts have broad discretion under section 78B-7-115 and may consider harassment and intimidation as forms of abuse justifying continuation of protection, even without ongoing physical violence. The court also upheld sanctions under section 78B-7-115(3) against Card for acting with intent to harass or intimidate. Practitioners should advise clients that technical compliance with protective orders is insufficient if the underlying conduct demonstrates a continuing pattern of harassment.
Case Details
Case Name
Card v. Card
Citation
2016 UT App 233
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20151001-CA
Date Decided
December 1, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a protective order under Utah Code section 78B-7-115 when the respondent has violated the protective order and engaged in harassing conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear future abuse.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for the ultimate decision whether to grant or deny a request to dismiss a protective order; correctness for interpretation of the statute; clear error for factual findings
Practice Tip
When moving to dismiss a protective order under Utah Code section 78B-7-115, ensure your client has genuinely changed their behavior and can demonstrate no reasonable fear of future abuse exists, as courts will carefully scrutinize any conduct that could be construed as harassment or intimidation.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.