Balsley v. Balsley , 2014 Ohio 4055 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Balsley v. Balsley, 2014-Ohio-4055.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
KIMBERLY BALSLEY : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Petitioner- Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
:
CHRISTOPHER BALSLEY : Case No. CT2014-0009
:
:
Respondent - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic
Relations Division, Case No
DH2007-0510
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 15, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner-Appellee–Pro Se For Respondent-Appellant–Pro Se
KIMBERLY BALSLEY CHRISTOPHER BALSLEY
2476 Michael Drive 2476 Michael Drive
Zanesville, OH 43701 Zanesville, OH 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0009 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 filed by
petitioner Kimberly Balsley.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On July 2, 2007, appellee filed a petition for a domestic violence civil
protection order, naming appellant as the respondent. The court issued an ex parte civil
stalking protection order on the same date. On July 9, 2007, appellee filed a request to
“drop her T.P.O.” for various reasons. On July 10, 2007, the court concluded that
appellee had voluntarily withdrawn her petition and dissolved the ex parte order.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
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
expungement and sealing of records relating to a dissolved CPO in “unusual and
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0009 3
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, and thus remanded the case to the trial court. Id. at ¶15. The
court concluded that the fact that no related criminal charges were filed is a factor to be
weighed on remand, and the trial court was to consider whether Schussheim’s interests
outweigh 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, and made the following findings concerning appellant’s case:
{¶9} “The current case is one of five cases which Respondent has requested
the relief of expungement and sealing of records. The Court finds that between
September 1, 2006 and July 2, 2007, the Respondent in this case was a party to five
case [sic] involving requests for protection orders or civil stalking protection orders. In
the present case, DH2007-0510, Kimberly Balsley was the Petitioner and Christopher
Balsley was the Respondent. In cases DH2006-0615 and DH2006-0849, Yvonne Ward
was the Petitioner and Christopher Balsley was the Respondent and case DH2006-
0621 Christopher Balsley was the Petitioner and Cheryl Mason was the Respondent. In
case DH 2006-0622, Christopher Balsley was again the Petitioner and Yvonne Lacey
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2014-0009 4
(Ward) 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. Balsley 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, Respondent’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. CT2014-0009 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.