Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a petition for a victim protection order was filed frivolously and that no victim existed under 22 O.S. § 60.2. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, reversed the trial court, and remanded with instructions to award attorney fees and costs to the defendant.
Holdings
- The petition was frivolously filed because the evidence showed that it was knowingly used to assist Pearman's former wife's custody litigation rather than to seek protection from domestic abuse or other qualifying harm.
- Because Murlin withdrew the petition and no court legally determined that she was Pearman's victim, the matter was victimless as a matter of law under 22 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 60.2.
- Pearman was entitled to attorney fees and costs because the petition was both frivolous and victimless.
Questions Presented
- Whether Murlin's petition for a victim protection order was frivolously filed under 22 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 60.2.
- Whether the withdrawn petition was victimless under 22 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 60.2.
- Whether Pearman was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (10)
- Curry v. Streater, 2009 OK 5, 213 P.3d 550(followed)
- Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n, 2013 OK 84, 313 P.3d 891(followed)
- Johnson v. Ward, 1975 OK 129, 541 P.2d 182(followed)
- State ex rel. Tal v. Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 97, 61 P.3d 234(followed)
- Abel v. Tisdale, 1980 OK 161, 619 P.2d 608(followed)
- Parsons v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 2014 OK 111, 341 P.3d 662(followed)
- Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Little, 1993 OK 116, 860 P.2d 226(followed)
- American First Abstract Co. v. Western Information Systems, Inc., 1987 OK 24, 735 P.2d 1187(followed)
- Loffland Bros. Equipment v. White, 1984 OK 69, 689 P.2d 311(followed)
- Oliver v. City of Tulsa, 1982 OK 121, 654 P.2d 607(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…