Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary
The Maryland Appellate Court ruled that where the wife was denied a final order of protection on June 14, 2023, her subsequent application for another final protective order – filed five days after the denial – was not barred by res judicata. The second proceeding raised new claims, including that after the June 14 hearing, husband threatened to kill wife.
The case is Hripunovs v. Maximova, No. 1169, Sept. Term, 2023 (filed Sept. 3, 2024) (Judges Wells, LEAHY, Eyler).
From the ruling:
FACTS: Sergejs Hripunovs and Elena Maximova were married on July 22, 2018, and have no children. The marriage has been marred with allegations of physical and emotional abuse, resulting in the issuance of multiple protective orders for both parties.
Relevant to this appeal, wife filed for an interim protective order on June 8, 2023, in the District Court of Maryland. In her petition, she stated that husband “came home on 6/7/2023 and started severely punching, grabbing and kicking me.” This interim petition for protection order was granted on the same day and later a temporary protective order was granted and extended. On June 14, 2023, the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County denied wife’s request for a final order of protection.
On June 19, five days after her petition for protective order in the District Court was denied, wife filed a new petition for protection in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County. The judge entered the final protective order on July 21, 2023, which stated that wife demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that husband placed her in fear of imminent danger and caused serious bodily harm, including “[a]ssault in any degree on June 14, 2023.” Husband argues that the circuit court erred because res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded wife’s claims and because the circuit court relied on prior findings of abuse when it entered a final protective order.
LAW: The court was not barred under the doctrine of res judicata because, although husband and wife were the same parties in the June 14, 2023, and the July 20, 2023, hearings for final protective orders, wife’s second petition for a final protective order constituted a different cause of action. The issues of abuse raised during those proceedings were not identical because wife raised a new allegation that, after the June 14 hearing, husband threatened to kill her.
For the same reason, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude wife from litigating the allegations of abuse during the final protective order hearing on July 20, 2023. The threat to kill wife constituted a new allegation of abuse, as did the allegations that since June 14, husband killed the parties’ kittens to upset and scare wife, and placed hidden cameras throughout the house and filmed wife without her knowledge or consent.
The court disagrees with husband’s argument that wife “refil[ed] the same petition for a
protective order until the desired results [were] obtained.” Husband’s argument is based
on the incorrect premise that the trial court was precluded from considering wife’s allegations of past abuse by husband against her. “[E]xcluding evidence of past abuse would violate the fundamental purpose” of the domestic violence statute, “which is to prevent future abuse.” “Whether a respondent has previously abused a petitioner is important and probative evidence in determining the appropriate remedies.”
The circuit court found that after the prior petition for final protective order was denied, husband made a “credible threat” that placed wife “in fear of imminent bodily injury.” This court defers to the judge’s credibility determinations. This court sees nothing erroneous in the trial court’s acceptance of wife’s testimony in the court’s finding that wife proved her allegations of abuse and fear for her safety by a preponderance of the evidence.
Judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County affirmed.
