Bosen v. Bosen

Bosen v. Bosen

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Michael Ray Bosen,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Pamela Rae Bosen,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20030513-CA

F I L E D

(November 26, 2004)

2004 UT App 442

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley

Attorneys: Jay L. Kessler, Magna, for Appellant

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Thorne.

DAVIS, Judge:

Pamela Rae Bosen (Respondent) appeals a civil stalking injunction granted against her and in favor of Michael Ray Bosen (Petitioner). We affirm.

Respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's grant of a civil stalking injunction. Rather than demonstrating how the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of stalking,

For civil stalking injunctions, "'stalking' means the crime of stalking as defined in [Utah Code s]ection 76-5-106.5." Utah Code Ann. § 77-3a-101(1) (2003); see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2003).

see Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-106.5, 77-3a-101(1) (2003), Respondent instead attempts to demonstrate how the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the tort law definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, we conclude that this argument is wholly without merit.

This notwithstanding, our review of the transcript of the February 10, 2003 hearing reveals that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's grant of a civil stalking injunction against Respondent.

Respondent also argues that Petitioner did not have standing to seek a civil stalking injunction on behalf of the parties' minor children and that the guardian ad litem did not have standing to appear at the injunction hearing. Respondent failed to raise either of these arguments before the trial court and does not argue plain error or exceptional circumstances on appeal. As a result, Respondent has waived these arguments and we will not consider them on appeal.

In addition, Respondent takes inconsistent positions in advancing these arguments. Respondent first asserts that Petitioner did not have standing to seek a civil stalking injunction on behalf of the parties' minor children because the guardian ad litem, not Petitioner, represented the children. Then, despite Respondent's admission that she notified the guardian ad litem that the injunction hearing was taking place and the fact that the children were named in the verified petition for the injunction, Respondent asserts that the guardian ad litem did not have standing to appear at the injunction hearing.

See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996) ("[I]ssues not raised at trial cannot be argued for the first time on appeal . . . unless the [appellant] demonstrates that plain error occurred or exceptional circumstances exist." (quotations and citations omitted)).

Affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge