Hannemann v. Anderson
283 P.3d 386
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioner sought to continue a FAPA restraining order against respondent based on alleged past abuse and threats.
- Trial court continued the ex parte FAPA order; respondent appeals the continuation.
- Key factual history: 1990s strangling incident and past violence; petitioner and respondent lived together in Arizona.
- Respondent was incarcerated for a period; after release they largely ceased contact until 2005 letters and a 2009 phone call.
- Petitioner obtained ex parte order in 2009; hearing held in 2010; order continued pending renewal; renewal entered in 2010.
- Issue is whether evidence shows imminent danger of further abuse or credible threat, under ORS 107.718(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows imminent danger or credible threat. | Petitioner argues prior abuse plus present contact demonstrates danger. | Respondent contends evidence is legally insufficient to prove imminent danger or credible threat. | Unsupported; order reversed for lack of imminent danger/credible threat. |
| Whether tolling/180-day period affects abuse timing under ORS 107.718. | Petitioner relies on tolling due to incarceration and distance to extend the 180-day window. | Respondent argues ORS 12.140 bars using older abuse acts. | We need not decide tolling applicability; nonetheless evidence fails on the other required elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or App 321 (2011) (cases where threatening conduct supported imminent danger/credible threat)
- Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or App 301 (2000) (heightened, persistent circumstances can justify a restraining order)
- Roshto v. McVein, 207 Or App 700 (2006) (no evidence of past abuse or contact; no imminent danger)
- Maffey v. Muchka, 244 Or App 308 (2011) (standard for reviewing trial court factual findings)
- State v. Macnab, 222 Or App 332 (2008) (distinguishes inference from speculation)
- State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (2004) (reasonable inferences must be based on probability)
- Fielder v. Fielder, 211 Or App 688 (2007) (reiterates elements of ORS 107.718(1) for FAPA order)