In re Marriage of Wiggs.
2025 COA 10. No. 23CA1561. Dissolution of Marriage—Permanent Protection Order—Sufficiency of Evidence—Final Appealable Order—Separate and Independent Relief.
January 30, 2025
Wife petitioned for dissolution of the parties’ marriage. She also filed a motion for a protection order against husband in the dissolution proceeding, alleging domestic abuse and stalking. Following a hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that husband had committed domestic abuse by physically harassing wife on two occasions, and it entered a permanent protection order (PPO).
Husband filed an appeal of the PPO. Wife moved to dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order, maintaining that a PPO issued in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is not a final judgment for appeal purposes until the dissolution action has been finally resolved through permanent orders. A PPO issued in a separate and independent action is a final and appealable order because it is the court’s final ruling on a plaintiff’s entitlement to a civil protection order. The court of appeals determined that such result is no different when the PPO is issued in an ongoing dissolution of marriage proceeding, because protection order proceedings are a discrete action for separate and independent relief initiated by a separate filing, governed by a separate statutory scheme, and concerning a different subject matter. The PPO here is thus a final and appealable order, notwithstanding the pendency of the dissolution proceeding.
On the merits, husband contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings that (1) he committed acts of domestic abuse; and (2) he will continue to commit such acts unless restrained. However, the court’s findings are sufficiently supported by the record, including wife’s testimony and video from the parties’ home security system.
Husband further argued that the district court abused its discretion by limiting him to 40 minutes to present his case. However, husband did not object to the time limit at the outset of the hearing. And the court granted his counsel’s request for additional time on the only occasion that he requested it.
The PPO was affirmed.