Balsley v. Mason , 2014 Ohio 4051 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Balsley v. Mason, 2014-Ohio-4051.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER BALSLEY : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Petitioner- Appellant : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
:
CHERYL MASON : Case No. CT2014-0006
:
:
Respondent - Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, Case No
DH2006-0621
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 15, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner-Appellant–Pro Se For Respondent-Appellee–Pro Se
CHRISTOPHER BALSLEY CHERYL MASON
2476 Michael Drive 345C Indiana Street
Zanesville, OH 43701 Zanesville, OH 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0006 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant Christopher Balsley appeals a judgment of the Muskingum
County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion to
expunge and seal the record of a domestic violence civil protection order he filed
against appellee Cheryl Mason.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On September 1, 2006, appellant filed a petition for a civil protection
stalking order, naming appellee as the respondent. The court issued an ex parte civil
stalking protection order on the same date. The matter was set for a hearing on
September 11, 2006. Appellant appeared in court represented by counsel, and
voluntarily withdrew his petition. The court dismissed the petition and dissolved the ex
parte order.
{¶3} On November 26, 2013, appellant moved to expunge and seal the record
of the proceeding pursuant to Schussheim v. Schussheim, 137 Ohio St. 3d 133, 998
N.E.2d 446, 2013-Ohio-4529. The court overruled the motion.
{¶4} Although appellant has not specifically assigned error to the court’s
decision, from his brief we extrapolate the following assignment of error:
{¶5} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT’S MOTION
TO EXPUNGE AND SEAL THE RECORD OF THE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER
PROCEEDING FILED BY APPELLEE.”
{¶6} In Schussheim, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court held that while no
statutory authorization exists for the court to expunge and seal records relating to a
dissolved CPO in adult proceedings, a court has the inherent authority to order the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0006 3
expungement and sealing of records relating to a dissolved CPO in “unusual and
exceptional circumstances.” Id. at ¶14. In deciding whether to grant this remedy, the
court must determine whether the interest of the accused in his good name and right to
be free from unwarranted punishment outweighs the government’s legitimate need to
maintain records. Id. Where there is no compelling state interest or reason to retain the
records, the applicant is entitled to expungement. Id.
{¶7} The court in Schussheim found that the case appeared to involve unusual
and exceptional circumstances because the complainant who filed the petition later
moved to dissolve the CPO, and averred that expungement was in the best interest of
herself and her children. Id. at ¶15. The court concluded that the fact that no related
criminal charges were filed was a factor to be weighed on remand, and the trial court
was to consider whether Schussheim’s interests outweighed the government’s need to
maintain the records. Id.
{¶8} In the instant case, the trial court applied the test set forth by the Ohio
Supreme Court in Schussheim, and made the following findings concerning appellant’s
case:
{¶9} “The current case is one of five cases which Petitioner has requested the
relief of expungement and sealing of records. The Court finds that between September
1, 2006 and July 2, 2007, the Petitioner in this case was a party to five case [sic]
involving requests for protection orders or civil stalking protection orders. In the present
case, DH2006-0621, Christopher Balsley was the Petitioner and Cheryl Mason was the
Respondent. In case DH2006-0615 and DH2006-0849 Yvonne Ward was the Petitioner
and Christopher Balsley was the Respondent. In case DH 2006-0622 Christopher
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0006 4
Balsley was again the Petitioner and Yvonne Lacey (Ward) was the Respondent and in
case DH2007-0510 Kimberly Balsley was the Petitioner and Christopher Balsley was
the Respondent. In each of the five cases, the Petition was either denied after a
hearing or voluntarily dismissed prior to a hearing. The request in the present case
must be considered in the context of the other four cases wherein similar requests for
relief have been filed simultaneously.
{¶10} “Unlike Mr. Schussheim, who was the Respondent in a single domestic
violence proceeding coupled with a contemporaneous divorce, Mr. Balsely has been a
party to five domestic violence proceedings in a period of ten months. And although
neither this nor the other four petitions were granted, this conduct may be relevant in
future proceedings. The Court finds there are no unique and unusual circumstances
existing in the present case and furthermore the government’s interest in maintaining
these records outweigh the interests of Mr. Balsley. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request is
denied.”
{¶11} Based on the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the
reasoning set forth by the trial court, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding
unique and unusual circumstances did not exist and the government’s interest in
maintaining the records outweighed appellant’s interests. The assignment of error is
overruled.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0006 5
{¶12} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court, Domestic
Relations Division, is affirmed. Costs are assessed to appellant.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.