Valenti v. Ackley
326 P.3d 604
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioner obtained an ex parte Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order against her former boyfriend (respondent); respondent requested a hearing and the trial court continued the order.
- Parties had a long-term intimate relationship and cohabited for ~3.5 years; relationship included volatile episodes and some physical violence while cohabiting.
- Key incidents: (1) October 15, 2012 — argument in car, respondent slammed steering wheel, called petitioner names, left and later broke down the locked door with his shoulder, leading petitioner to call police and respondent’s arrest; (2) May 2011 — alleged physical altercation causing a bleeding nose and black eye (outside 180-day window); (3) June 2012 — angry late-night voicemails and threats over phone, leading petitioner to bring a knife to work out of fear.
- After the ex parte order, respondent moved out; parties continued to work together with a separation plan, though petitioner alleged at least one work-area breach and that respondent planned to attend an event where she would perform (he ultimately did not attend).
- Trial court affirmed the restraining order, finding the statutory elements established; respondent appealed arguing insufficient evidence of (1) abuse within 180 days, (2) imminent danger of further abuse, and (3) a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was a victim of abuse within 180 days before filing | Petitioner relied on the Oct. 15, 2012 incident and earlier episodes to show abuse within 180 days | Respondent argued verbal conflict without physical harm or threats is not abuse; some incidents were outside 180 days | Court assumed (for purposes of decision) petitioner may have been a victim of abuse but focused analysis on remaining elements |
| Whether petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse | Petitioner pointed to door-breaking, threatening voicemails, workplace breaches, and the parties’ volatile history to show imminent danger | Respondent argued volatility ended after they stopped cohabiting and post-separation conduct did not show imminent danger | Reversed: record lacks evidence of imminent danger once parties ceased cohabiting |
| Whether respondent posed a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety | Petitioner cited violent episodes, threats, and continued proximity (work, social circles, event planning) as a credible threat | Respondent emphasized no ongoing violence after moving out, compliance at work, and that some threatening acts were isolated or outside 180 days | Reversed: no evidence respondent posed a credible threat to physical safety after separation |
| Standard of review and scope of appellate review | N/A — petitioner implicitly relied on trial judge’s fact findings | Respondent requested de novo review; court declined absent exceptional circumstances | Appellate court applied deferential review (presumed findings supported if any evidence) but found insufficient evidence for two statutory elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannemann v. Anderson, 251 Or. App. 207 (2012) (presumption of trial-court findings and standard of review on appeal)
- Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or. App. 321 (2011) (petitioner’s subjective fear insufficient; court may consider conduct outside 180 days when assessing imminent danger)
- Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or. App. 297 (2000) (erratic, intrusive, volatile behavior can support finding of imminent danger and credible threat)
- Poulalion v. Lempea, 251 Or. App. 656 (2012) (brief property visit and immediate departure insufficient to show imminent danger or credible threat)
Result: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s continuation of the FAPA restraining order, concluding the record lacked evidence that petitioner faced imminent danger of further abuse or that respondent posed a credible threat to her physical safety.