Richins v. Weldon

541 P.3d 274

Timothy RICHINS, Appellee,

v.Mark WELDON, Appellant.

No. 20220522-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed December 7, 2023

Walter A. Romney Jr. and Trenton L. Lowe, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellant

Chris A. Dexter, Attorney for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan D. Tenney and John D. Luthy concurred.

Opinion

MORTENSEN, Judge:

¶1 Mark Weldon admits he doesn't like Timothy Richins. But they had to deal with each other because Weldon managed the building in which Richins's employer is located. Richins filed a petition for a stalking injunction after becoming aware of direct and indirect communications Weldon had allegedly made concerning Richins. After being served with a temporary stalking injunction, Weldon requested a hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, the district court made the injunction permanent. Now Weldon appeals, claiming that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the injunction and that the district court erroneously applied the facts to the law. We reject Weldon's arguments and affirm the district court.

BACKGROUND

Petition and Temporary Civil Stalking Injunction

¶2 Richins was a vice president at a company (Company), and his duties included facility management and ensuring that lease obligations were being fulfilled. In this capacity, he had known Weldon since November 2020. Weldon is the manager of the business that leased an office building to the Company. The Company leased space on the second floor and shared the first-floor server room with another tenant. According to Richins, the primary communications between him and Weldon were "discussions about the warehouse that was in current construction that [the Company was] going to ... lease or move into once that construction was completed" and "any type of office facilities requirement, because it was a full-service lease." At the time of the events giving rise to this appeal, Weldon and the business he managed were "involved in civil disputes with [the Company] regarding the lease and other disputes."

¶3 Richins filed a request for a civil stalking injunction against Weldon in September 2021. In his civil stalking petition, Richins alleged that Weldon had "become increasingly hostile" and engaged in the following actions:

1. "On April 15, 2021, Mr. Weldon texted Mr. Richins at home and threatened to have him arrested and told [Richins] he was going to come see him personally."

2. "On July 8, 2021, Mr. Weldon sent a harassing email calling Mr. Richins by various names and calling him a liar."

3. "On July 8, 2021, Mr. Weldon sent an email with an implied threat that he ‘will be at the warehouse and he better not see any oil from a forklift.’ "

4. "Additional emails were sent on July 8 and July 9, 2021 and again on July 27, 2021 harassing Mr. Richins and insulting him."

¶4 The petition also outlined various events that occurred on August 27, 2021—as detailed below—that ultimately prompted Richins to file a statement with the police and that became the focus of Richins's civil stalking injunction hearing.

¶5 The district court issued a temporary civil stalking injunction against Weldon. Soon thereafter, Weldon requested a hearing.

Evidentiary Hearing to Determine Permanence of Injunction

¶6 The district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine if the injunction would be modified, revoked, or continued. See Utah Code § 78B-7-701(5)(a). At the hearing, most of the testimony surrounded the events that occurred on August 27 at the Company's office building; unlike the events in April and July, Richins was not present for the August events and therefore had no personal knowledge of what occurred. Richins called six employees of the company as witnesses: a computer programmer (Programmer), a software engineer (Engineer), a software architect (Architect), the Company's CEO (CEO), an executive assistant (Assistant), and himself; Weldon called two witnesses: the property manager for the building (Manager) and himself.

A. Programmer

¶7 Programmer was present on August 27 for a meeting (the first meeting) with Weldon, Manager, Engineer, and Architect in the first-floor server room. Programmer, Engineer, and Architect were there to retrieve keys to the second-floor server room from Weldon and Manager and to transfer the servers there.

¶8 Programmer testified that when someone mentioned needing to get a key from Richins, Weldon expressed a lot of anger toward Richins, used "angry and aggressive language," swore, claimed that Richins "was doing wrong to him," said that "he wasn't going to let [Richins] get away with it," and stated that he was "watching" Richins and CEO.

¶9 After the first meeting, Programmer sent an email to Richins and CEO to notify them that Weldon had complained about Richins, "was verbally aggressive, [used] harsh language and repeatedly [dropped] F-bombs." The email explained that Weldon asked Architect "to tell" Richins that he was "an asshole." Programmer continued, "I don't remember at what point during his rant this was brought up, but he also said that he knows what [Richins] did in the warehouse and that he'll never get away with it. He said that he has private investigators following [Richins] and [CEO] and that he'll always be coming for them." Programmer understood this statement to mean that Weldon "would pursue legal recourse and other means if ... deemed by him necessary until he got what he wanted." Programmer also expressed "concern" because Weldon "frankly ... seemed a little unhinged and ... unpredictable," stating that it made him fear for his safety at work.

¶10 Programmer further described a part of the first meeting where a screwdriver was needed to complete the task at hand. After the tool was located, Weldon informed Programmer that he would lend it to him but if Programmer "didn't give it back to him, [Weldon] was going to have to go out to his car, get in his trunk, grab a gun, and bring that gun upstairs and shoot somebody." When Programmer returned the screwdriver, Weldon said, "Good. Now I don't have to shoot anybody," which Programmer took as "an implied threat," largely directed against Richins. Programmer explained that Weldon's anger "the entire time" was aimed at Richins. Moreover, Weldon's anger was unsolicited: "[H]e brought it up and kept going off on it." Programmer explained that "given the context," he understood the phrase "shoot somebody" to mean that Richins was the object of the threat. However, Programmer clarified that Weldon never directly said that he would shoot Richins.

¶11 Programmer revealed that he was "in fear" for himself and Richins after the first meeting. He told Richins "everything" he had included in the email and that he "thought" Weldon was "unstable" and the interaction was "scary." In response to Programmer's concerns, Richins explained that some of his past dealings with Weldon had been unpleasant and "scary to him."

B. Engineer

¶12 Engineer also testified about the first meeting, including the screwdriver incident. Engineer expressed that the incident was "very odd" and "very uncomfortable" because Weldon, with whom Engineer had never interacted, was "threatening violence in a very ... serious manner." Engineer clarified that Weldon's vitriol was directed at Richins. Weldon had called Richins "an effing tool," "an A-hole," and other "very similar things using similar vulgar language." Engineer said, "[W]eldon expressed his hatred of [Richins] very clearly. ... It sounded pretty serious .... [H]e did not sound like he was joking." Engineer testified that the incident left him feeling "pretty nervous" and "scared."

¶13 After the first meeting, Engineer sent an email to Richins and CEO summarizing the encounter. Engineer wrote that Weldon was "spewing F-bombs," "telling us he's never going to stop going after" Richins and CEO, saying "that he has private investigators following" them, and stating that Richins "is a fucking asshole." Engineer's email also recounted the screwdriver threat, noting that (1) Weldon told him that if it was not returned, "he would go out to his car, grab his gun, and come upstairs and have to shoot someone" and (2) after returning the screwdriver, Weldon responded, "Good. Now I don't have to shoot someone."

¶14 Engineer testified that he interpreted Weldon's statement about going after Richins and CEO to mean that he was "stalking and following them," intending to maybe do "harm to them in some way" or pursue legal remedies against them. Engineer interpreted these statements as threatening. Engineer noted in his testimony that Richins "remained upstairs" during the first meeting and that Weldon talked about shooting "someone" but did not specifically mention Richins.

C. Architect

¶15 Architect also testified about the first meeting. He stated that upon hearing Richins's name, Weldon "became extremely angry" and "agitated." Architect testified that Weldon "started ranting" and saying, "[Richins] is an effing tool. I effing hate him. ... I've been watching him. I know what he did. I'm never going to stop coming for him." Architect explained that he perceived Weldon's statements as "threats" that made him "very concerned" for his own safety and especially for Richins's safety. Architect was not privy to additional statements Weldon made because he "extricated" himself from the situation at that point. However, when he later recounted the first meeting to Richins, Architect indicated that Richins "seemed very uncomfortable" and "frightened."

D. CEO

¶16 CEO testified about his interactions with Weldon at a separate meeting (the second meeting) that took place a few minutes after the first meeting on August 27. Weldon, Manager, CEO, and Assistant were present at this second meeting, which was called to discuss some misunderstandings regarding the ownership of various equipment. At some point during the second meeting, Weldon "mentioned that he was very upset with ... Richins," said that CEO should fire...