The Court continued in relevant part: As for any previous history of domestic violence between E.W. and defendant, including threats, harassment and physical abuse, there is no evidence of such in this record. The parties dated for a brief period of time, approximately one month. The court notes that there is an alleged history of prevarication by W.M-H. throughout their relationship, but there is no cognizable domestic violence history here. This factor weighs against the entry of a final restraining order.
Next, the court looks to the existence of immediate danger to person or property. While there were allegations as to purported violent capabilities of W.M-H., the court views those through the lens of embellishment and puffery. There is no evidence in this record that W.M-H. is anything other than someone who is alleged to have engaged in a persona for the purpose of courtship. While W.M-H. may have taken advantage of E.W.’s generosity in relation to the large sums of money provided to him, E.W. is engaging in the appropriate legal venues for the return of that money. The court is hard pressed to find that there is an immediate danger to E.W.’s person or property. This factor weighs against the granting of a final restraining order.
The court only briefly pauses to address the financial circumstances of E.W. and defendant. While there is evidence, contested to be sure, as to a large outstanding debt owed to E.W. by W.M-H., there is not in this case the type of intertwined and interconnected finances that would cause the court to find that E.W. needs a final restraining order to equalize any imbalance. There is simply insufficient evidence in this record for this factor to support the entry of a final restraining order.
If there could be a critique on Judge Sanders’s writing style, it is that he does not always use plain, simple language. However, this is probably the result of his desire to be polite. Prevarication, for example, means lying.