Marriage of Kravchenko CA3

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 2016 No. C077970Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a five-year domestic violence restraining order, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the appellant failed to support his claims with adequate legal argument or citations to the record.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion or violate the appellant's due process rights in issuing the domestic violence restraining order?
Did the appellant waive his remaining claims by failing to provide reasoned argument and citations to the record?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find the trial court neither denied Igor his right to due process nor abused its discretion in issuing the DVTRO.”

“When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.”

Filed 9/15/16 Marriage of Kravchenko CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of SVITLANA and IGOR C077970 KRAVCHENKO.

SVITLANA KRAVCHENKO, (Super. Ct. No. 14FL00532)

Respondent,

IGOR KRAVCHENKO,

Appellant.

In 2013 respondent Svitlana Kravchenko (Lana) obtained a domestic violence temporary restraining order (DVTRO) against her then husband, appellant Igor Kravchenko (Igor).1 Following a court trial, the court issued a five-year DVTRO against Igor. On appeal, Igor, proceeding in pro. per., challenges the issuance of the DVTRO. We shall affirm the judgment.

1 We use the parties’ first names for clarity’s sake.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The original DVTRO against Igor was issued on December 12, 2013. Prior to issuance of the DVTRO, Igor had moved out of the family home. Lana requested a five-year restraining order that limited contact between the parties to either text message or e-mail, and a general stay-away order with exceptions for school functions or counseling. An exception was made for their workplaces, which were located in close proximity to each other. The Trial A court trial began on August 21, 2014. The following evidence was introduced at trial. Igor testified he and Lana met in the Ukraine in 1990 or 1991. The couple have two children. Both Igor and Lana work in real estate. One of the allegations in the restraining order application was that on December 6, 2013, Igor had been yelling at Lana and accusing her family of stealing money from him. Igor denied the allegation. The following day police arrived, but Igor denied locking Lana out of the house the previous night. He denied grabbing Lana or repeatedly punching her in the chest. Igor testified Lana suffered from depression. Igor denied telling potential witnesses Natalya Stakhovska, Svetlana Blyshchyk, Galina Klets, or witness Larisa Cheban not to testify in court. He also denied stating he would file lawsuits against anybody who supported Lana in the restraining order. Nor did Igor approach the pastor at his church and ask him to convince people not to support Lana. Igor testified he never hit Lana, blackened her eye, or split her lip. Nor did he belittle Lana in front of their children. Igor never insulted his wife or threatened to kill her.

Marriage of Kravchenko CA3

AI Brief

IGOR KRAVCHENKO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

BLEASE , J.

NICHOLSON , J.

AI Brief