351 P.3d 808
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner and respondent were in a long-term domestic partnership that ended against respondent’s wishes; petitioner filed for an SPO on November 20, 2013.
- Petitioner alleged three bases for the SPO: (1) respondent struck him while he slept in September 2010, later discovered his arm was broken; (2) respondent on several occasions between 2010 and Oct. 2013 parked near his workplace and watched him; (3) on Nov. 19, 2013, respondent posed as a prospective buyer and entered the home petitioner rented during a realtor showing.
- Petitioner testified he was not concerned for his physical safety until the Nov. 19, 2013 incident when respondent entered the house; after that incident he felt respondent was unpredictable and was concerned for his safety.
- Trial court issued the SPO based on those incidents but made minimal factual findings.
- Respondent appealed, challenging whether there were at least two qualifying "repeated and unwanted" contacts within the two years preceding the petition, as required by ORS 30.866 and ORS 163.730(7).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner proved two or more qualifying contacts within two years of the SPO filing | The 2010 assault, repeated parking/watch incidents, and the Nov. 19, 2013 house entry together constitute repeated contacts | The 2010 assault was outside the two‑year window; parking incidents did not subjectively alarm petitioner, leaving only one qualifying contact | Reversed: only the Nov. 19, 2013 incident could possibly qualify; parking incidents did not cause subjective alarm and the 2010 incident was time‑barred, so petitioner did not prove two qualifying contacts within two years |
| Proper standard of appellate review for SPO factual findings | N/A — petitioner did not seek de novo review | Respondent argued the trial court’s findings lacked evidence to support an SPO | Court applied "any evidence" standard for factual findings (not de novo), viewing evidence in light most favorable to trial court; nonetheless found evidence legally insufficient to support SPO |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis v. Strubel, 238 Or. App. 254 (appellate standards for SPO appeals)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (presumption that unmade findings are consistent with ultimate conclusion when evidence could support multiple outcomes)
- Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or. App. 133 (view evidence and inferences in light most favorable to trial court)
- Layne v. MacDonald, 267 Or. App. 628 (SPO requires two or more contacts within two years)
- Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or. App. 414 (subjective alarm and reasonable apprehension requirements)
- Reitz v. Erazo, 248 Or. App. 700 (each contact must give rise to alarm/coercion)
- Farris v. Johnson, 222 Or. App. 377 (SPO cannot be issued on a single contact)