N.L.P. v. C.G.W., 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1484

Neighbor dispute between petitioner N.L.P. and respondent C.G.W., who live on adjoining properties on a shared road.
N.L.P. filed a verified petition under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act alleging stalking by C.G.W. (false reports to animal control, harassing phone calls, use of building/solid waste departments).
Trial court issued ex parte protection and later held a hearing; court found prior peace between parties but entered a full order of protection for one year prohibiting stalking and any communication.
At the hearing, evidence showed C.G.W. repeatedly called government agencies about code, solid waste, animal control, police, and the construction company; some citations issued to N.L.P.
Other alleged acts: one instance of following (possibly coincidental), 10–15 weekly calls requesting road-cost contribution, voicemails (tree trimming, threatening to report land acquisition), and a rude hand gesture.
Trial court concluded stalking proved; the appeals court reviewed sufficiency of evidence and whether acts established an unwanted course of conduct causing alarm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved "stalking" under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.010(13) (unwanted course of conduct serving no legitimate purpose that causes alarm)	N.L.P.: C.G.W.’s repeated calls, reports to agencies, following, and hostile communications constituted an unwelcome course of conduct causing her alarm and fear for her life	C.G.W.: Calls and reports had legitimate purposes (code compliance, public-safety complaints); isolated or lawful acts do not show a course of conduct causing fear of physical harm	Reversed: evidence insufficient. Many acts had legitimate purposes; remaining acts did not prove subjective or objective alarm necessary for stalking.

Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review in court-tried civil cases)
White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (application of Murphy standard)
Bateman v. Platte County, 363 S.W.3d 39 (Mo. banc 2012) (view evidence in light most favorable to judgment)
M.L.G. v. R.W., 406 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (trial courts must ensure sufficient evidence before labeling someone a stalker)
Dennis v. Henley, 314 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (an act cannot prove the statutory course of conduct if it has a legitimate purpose)
M.D.L. v. S.C.E., 391 S.W.3d 525 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (activity with a legitimate purpose is lawful or allowed)
Skovira v. Talley, 369 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (alarm requires subjective and objective proof)
Binggeli v. Hammond, 300 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (proof of subjective fear is required)
George v. McLuckie, 227 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (same)
Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (same)
C.H. v. Wolfe, 302 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (stalking provision not meant to resolve minor neighbor disputes)