Holeman v. White
2012 OK CIV APP 107
Okla. Civ. App.2012Background
- Steve White seeks review of a protective order (VPO) issued against him for alleged harassment by David Holeman.
- Holeman petitioned for the VPO after White, via his wife's email, replied to Holeman’s messages to Mrs. White over several months.
- Initial petition (Sept. 14, 2009) was not served on White and expired under statutory procedure.
- Approximately seven emails were exchanged between February 2009 and April 2010, consisting of insults with no physical contact.
- Trial court found harassment under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act and issued the VPO; White appealed.
- Appellate court reversed the VPO on the harassment issue, remanding with instructions to dismiss; other issues not addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White's emails constitute harassment | White argues no pattern causing substantial distress | Holeman argues emails meet harassment elements | Harassment not proven; VPO reversed |
| Timeliness/staleness of the VPO under § 60.4(B)(4) | White contends the VPO was stale and improper | Holeman maintains timeliness supports the order | Not reached; Court remands on harassment issue first |
| Subjective fear as basis for harassment finding | White challenges reliance on subjective fear | Holeman asserts fear supported by conduct | Not reached; Court remands on harassment issue first |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (abuse of discretion; focus on objective facts in harassment analysis)
- Sneed v. Sneed, 585 P.2d 1363 (Okla. 1978) (court may not reverse automatically; standard of review)
- Hamid v. Sew Original, 645 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1982) (preserves discretion; appellate evaluation of trial court judgment)