Court sets Aug. 5 hearing in Koehler v. Allen after petitioner describes four-year dispute; defense raises venue concerns

A probate court scheduled a contested full-day hearing for Aug. 5 at 9 a.m. in Case No. 160400655, Alicia Koehler v. Mark Stewart Allen, after the parties disagreed about the scope of evidence, the time needed for testimony and whether the petitioner’s professional contacts create a venue concern.

The hearing was set during a pretrial conference, where defense counsel Wes Hutchins told the judge the injunction is disputed and that he needed time to review newly delivered documents and to issue subpoenas. The judge said the court would plan for a full day to accommodate the contested issues and agreed to move the probate calendar to hold the date.

Why it matters: The petitioner described repeated interactions she says go back years and said she would call police officers and other witnesses; defense counsel said those assertions, together with the petitioner’s reported work with child-protective services and juvenile court staff, raise the possibility of a change of venue.

At the conference the petitioner described the dispute as long-running: “I have been dealing with this man for 4 years,” she said, and added that local law enforcement (including what she identified as Lehi police and Heber City Chief Booth) had previously warned the respondent. Defense counsel said his client “will agree to abide by the terms of the injunction pending this hearing,” but otherwise disputes the allegations and needs time to prepare.

Counsel raised a scheduling and evidence timetable issue: issuing subpoenas that comply with statute and that arrive in time to secure witness testimony. He told the court he had recently received a box of documents and believed the contested hearing could run closer to a half day to three-quarters of a day, though the judge recommended planning for a full day to avoid scheduling shortfalls.

Counsel also flagged venue as a possible procedural issue after the petitioner stated she works in juvenile court and with DCFS; counsel said, “Now that she’s placed that on the record … We may need to bring a motion for a change of venue,” and the judge asked that any such motion be filed promptly so the scheduling impact can be addressed.

The court continued the temporary stalking injunction pending the contested hearing. The judge set the hearing for Aug. 5 at 09:00, asked counsel to confer about timely subpoenas and evidence preparation, and indicated the court would accommodate a shortened or extended hearing day depending on the parties’ filings. The court then recessed.

Next steps: The contested hearing will occur Aug. 5 at 09:00; the temporary order remains in place pending that hearing. Counsel was advised to file any motion for change of venue as soon as possible so the court can address scheduling implications.