Background
Salman Iqbal and Zafrin Syed were married in 2000 and divorced in December 2023. In March 2021, following an evidentiary hearing, a Jefferson Circuit Court family division judge issued a domestic violence order (DVO) in Syed’s favor, set to expire in March 2024. Shortly before expiration, Syed moved to extend the DVO. The family court granted that extension in March 2024, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated the order in a prior appeal (Iqbal I, 2025 WL 728005 (Ky. App. Mar. 7, 2025)), finding that Iqbal had not been properly served with notice of the hearing. The matter was remanded for a new hearing with adequate notice to both parties.
On remand, the family court held a full evidentiary hearing on May 29, 2025. Syed testified remotely via Zoom, recounting her ongoing fear of Iqbal based on the original acts of domestic violence, his black belt in martial arts, and a recent incident in which she alleged he entered her home without permission while dropping off their adult daughter. She also expressed concern that Iqbal’s failure to pay court-ordered maintenance could trigger litigation that might provoke violent retaliation. Iqbal appeared in person, denied entering Syed’s home, and claimed to have a video corroborating his account — but was unable to produce it during the hearing. He also sought to introduce testimony from Syed’s father and their daughter, but neither appeared, and Iqbal was unable to reach them when the court offered to allow remote participation.
The family court found Syed more credible, noted that Iqbal had violated the existing DVO by entering her home, and extended the DVO for an additional three years. Iqbal moved to alter, amend, or vacate, attaching an affidavit from the parties’ daughter, but the family court denied the motion. Iqbal, proceeding pro se, appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the extension of the DVO, reviewing only for manifest injustice because Iqbal’s brief again failed to comply with Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 32 — lacking citations to the record, citations to legal authority, and required preservation statements. The court found no manifest injustice, defined as error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings and is “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.”
On the merits, the court deferred to the family court’s credibility determination. The family court found Syed’s testimony more credible, observing that Iqbal could not produce the video he claimed existed, that he had previously shown no hesitation pulling his daughter out of school to testify but now declined to call her, and that the history underlying the original DVO supported continued concern. The appellate court also confirmed that under KRS 403.740(4) and Cottrell v. Cottrell, 571 S.W.3d 590 (Ky. App. 2019), additional acts of domestic violence are not required to extend a DVO — a court may rely on the nature and severity of the original acts in determining that an extension is necessary.
Key Takeaways
- A Kentucky family court may extend a DVO without proof of new acts of domestic violence; the severity and nature of the original acts of domestic violence are sufficient grounds under KRS 403.740(4).
- A pro se appellant’s failure to comply with RAP 32 — by omitting record citations, legal authority, and preservation statements — limits appellate review to the highly deferential manifest injustice standard.
- Credibility determinations by the family court sitting as factfinder are entitled to substantial deference on appeal, particularly where the appellant was unable to produce evidence he claimed supported his account.
- The court also cautioned appellee’s counsel that briefing deficiencies by represented parties are not overlooked and may result in sanctions in future cases.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that DVO extensions in Kentucky do not require a showing of post-order domestic violence incidents. Petitioners who demonstrate an ongoing, reasonable fear of harm — grounded in the original acts and current circumstances such as boundary violations or anticipated litigation — can satisfy the statutory burden. Practitioners advising clients on DVO renewal motions should document any post-order contact or conduct, even where it falls short of a new act of violence, as supporting evidence of continued need.
The case is also a reminder of the high cost of appellate procedural noncompliance. Iqbal’s repeated failure to include record citations and preservation statements converted a de novo or clear-error review into manifest injustice review — a nearly insurmountable standard — and the court explicitly flagged that this was the same deficiency identified in his prior appeal.