O'KANE v. Irvine

California Court of Appeal
47 Cal.App.4th 207, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To be considered 'cohabitants' under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, individuals must share more than a common roof; they must live together as a group or unit of a permanent and domestic character, directing their attention toward a common goal of mutual interests.

Facts:

Kerri O’Kane sublet a bedroom in a San Francisco house from the primary lessee, Kristie Schimmelman.
Around the same time, Mark Irvine sublet the downstairs unit in the same house from Schimmelman.
O'Kane and Irvine were not acquainted with each other before entering into their separate sublease agreements.
The two had no romantic or friendly relationship and were essentially strangers living in the same building.
O'Kane and Irvine had access to and used shared common areas in the house, including the bathroom, kitchen, living room, and dining room.
After a few weeks, an altercation occurred in which O'Kane alleged Irvine assaulted her.

Procedural Posture:

Kerri O’Kane filed an application in the trial court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Mark Irvine under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
The trial court granted the TRO and set the matter for a hearing.
Following the hearing, the trial court issued a three-year restraining order requiring Irvine to stay 100 yards away from O'Kane and her residence.
Irvine filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment, both of which the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
Irvine, as appellant, appealed the restraining order to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue it.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a living arrangement where two unrelated individuals sublet separate rooms in the same house from a common lessee and share common areas, without any prior romantic, familial, or friendly relationship, constitute 'cohabiting' under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Parrilli, J.

No. A living arrangement between unrelated individuals who are essentially roommates does not qualify as 'cohabiting' for the purposes of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The Act defines a protected person as a 'cohabitant,' which in turn is defined as 'a person who regularly resides in the household.' Citing prior judicial interpretation, the court defined 'household' as a collection of persons living together as a unit of a permanent or domestic character with a common goal. Irvine and O'Kane did not live together as a group or social unit; their connection was one of happenstance created by separate agreements with a common lessee. Because their relationship lacked the necessary domestic character, they were not 'cohabitants,' and the Act did not provide the trial court with jurisdiction to issue the restraining order.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the term 'cohabitant' under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. It establishes that the Act is not a general remedy for disputes between any individuals residing under the same roof, such as tenants or boarders. By requiring a showing of a 'household' with a domestic character and common purpose, the court prevents the Act's powerful remedies from being applied to ordinary roommate disputes, thereby preserving the statute's focus on relationships with a familial or romantic nexus. Future cases will require a factual inquiry into the nature of the relationship, not just the living arrangement, to determine if the Act applies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: O'KANE v. Irvine (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"