The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision to award attorney fees to Holly DePrimo in a case involving alleged stalking. The ruling affects Nicole Hohenstein and Angela Thompson, who sought to hold DePrimo in contempt for violating anti-stalking protective orders. This case highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding protective orders in Georgia.
The dispute began after a series of online harassment incidents that Hohenstein and Thompson alleged were perpetrated by DePrimo. They filed for anti-stalking protective orders against her, which were granted in January 2024. However, a year later, they attempted to hold DePrimo in contempt, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Court of Appeals.
In late November 2023, Hohenstein and Thompson accused DePrimo of harassing them, claiming they felt unsafe. They filed petitions for anti-stalking protective orders under Georgia law, which were granted as consent orders in January 2024. These orders did not specify an expiration date and were intended to protect the petitioners from further harassment.
However, in February 2025, Hohenstein and Thompson filed motions to hold DePrimo in contempt, alleging she violated the orders. DePrimo countered that the consent orders had expired after one year, leading to a hearing where the trial court sided with her. The court ruled that the orders could not support contempt claims because they had expired, and it awarded DePrimo $5,000 in attorney fees for defending against the contempt claims.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, specifically focusing on the award of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(a). This statute allows for the awarding of attorney fees when a party asserts a claim that lacks any justiciable issue of law or fact. The court found that the trial court had misinterpreted the law regarding the duration of the protective orders.
The Court of Appeals stated, “The trial court erred in awarding $5,000 to Appellee under OCGA § 9-15-14(a), and we therefore reverse.” The judges concluded that the consent orders had the potential to be permanent based on the law as it stood when the orders were issued. The amendment to OCGA § 16-5-94(d) allowed for protective orders to be granted on a permanent basis, which the trial court failed to recognize.
This ruling is significant because it clarifies the legal standing of anti-stalking protective orders in Georgia. The court's decision indicates that such orders, if not explicitly set to expire, can remain in effect indefinitely. This outcome is crucial for victims of stalking, as it reinforces their legal protections and the enforceability of protective orders.
Moving forward, the ruling may encourage more individuals to seek protective orders without fear of them expiring prematurely. It also emphasizes the need for courts to accurately interpret and apply statutory law regarding protective orders. This case serves as a reminder that victims of stalking have legal avenues to protect themselves, and the courts must uphold these protections.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether DePrimo will seek to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision. The court has set a precedent regarding the interpretation of protective orders that may influence future cases. There may also be related cases pending that could further clarify the application of anti-stalking laws in Georgia.