The Tennessee Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Aaron Cregati concerning a ten-year extension of an order of protection, ruling that Cregati failed to raise any of his arguments before the trial court, thereby waiving his right to appeal those issues.
The appellate court not only dismissed the appeal but also awarded the appellee, Breanna Nicole Petet, her reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred while defending the appeal, citing specific Tennessee statutes designed to protect victims in domestic abuse and stalking cases.
The Origin of the Case: Stalking Allegations
This complex legal saga began in September 2022 when Petet, then a pregnant seventeen-year-old, sought an order of protection against Cregati, who was twenty-one. Petet alleged that Cregati had stalked her for weeks. Her petition detailed several alarming incidents, including Cregati showing up at her school to harass her, visiting her family’s home to fight her cousin, threatening to reveal private health information, and repeatedly contacting her and her mother across various social media accounts and phone numbers even after being blocked.
The Hamilton County Chancery Court swiftly issued a temporary order of protection. At the hearing on September 22, 2022, Cregati failed to appear despite being personally served with notice. Following testimony from Petet and her mother, whom the judge found credible, the court granted a one-year order of protection, finding Cregati had threatened and stalked Petet.
Cregati later attempted to overturn this order in November 2022, but the trial court denied his motion, noting that his testimony was not credible and that the motion seemed to be an attempt to relitigate settled matters.
Escalating Extensions and Continued Non-Appearance
The order was extended once in September 2023 after Petet alleged Cregati continued contacting her. Again, Cregati did not attend the extension hearing.
The critical point of contention in this appeal stemmed from the subsequent extension request in September 2024. Petet moved to extend the order for a full ten years, expressing that she remained “terrified” of Cregati due to continued alleged violations of the existing orders.
Petet attended the final hearing on October 21, 2024, with counsel, but Cregati failed to appear for a third time. Cregati later claimed in his appeal brief that he was temporarily located in Maryland during this period. The trial court, after hearing Petet’s testimony, granted the ten-year extension.
The Appeal: A Litany of Unraised Issues
Cregati subsequently appealed the ten-year extension, raising numerous issues. These included claims that his failure to appear was due to an assault and robbery causing a medical emergency (which he sought to excuse under Rule 60.02), allegations of deceit by the petitioner, incorrect legal standards applied by the judge, denial of electronic appearance, and alleged due process violations.
However, the Court of Appeals immediately focused on the procedural posture of the case, noting that the appellee (Petet) argued that Cregati had waived every issue presented because he failed to raise them in the trial court during the proceedings leading up to the ten-year extension.
The appellate court strongly affirmed the importance of adhering to procedural rules, even for litigants representing themselves (*pro se*). The opinion stressed that *pro se* litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.
The Court’s Ruling: Waiver and Dismissal
The appellate court concluded that Cregati’s appeal brief contained arguments and facts not supported by the record, which could not be considered. More critically, Cregati’s arguments failed to comply with Rule 6 of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which requires appellants to specifically cite where they brought the alleged error to the trial judge’s attention.
The opinion pointed out that Tennessee law is clear: “issues and arguments not raised or asserted in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Since Cregati did not object to the extension terms, contest the evidence, or request alternatives (like electronic appearance) during the October 2024 hearing, the Court of Appeals held that he had waived all the points he sought to argue.
Because Cregati failed to preserve his challenges in the lower court, the appeal was dismissed entirely.
Attorney Fees Awarded to Victim
In a win for Petet, the appellate court granted her request for attorney fees and costs. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1), if a court issues or extends an order of protection, all associated court costs and attorney fees are assessed against the respondent.
The court noted that since the trial court issued an order based on stalking and Petet successfully defended Cregati’s appeal from the extension, she was entitled to recover her legal expenses incurred on appeal. The case was remanded back to the trial court solely for the calculation of the final fee amount.
The final judgment confirms the dismissal of Cregati’s appeal and sends the matter back to Hamilton County to determine the final cost award against him.