Argued and Submitted September 25, 2012.
Washington County Circuit Court. C114699CV, C114700CV. Suzanne Upton, Judge.
Judgment in A149922 reversed and remanded; judgment in A149923 affirmed.
Jessica A. Skelton argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Legal Voice.
No appearance for respondent Breck Carter.
No appearance for respondent Robert Bosket.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge.
[261 Or.App. 135] ORTEGA, P. J.
In this consolidated appeal, petitioner appeals judgments dismissing his petitions for permanent stalking protective orders (SPOs) against two of his neighbors, Bosket and Carter, under ORS 30.866. Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in determining that it was not objectively reasonable for a person in his situation to have been alarmed and that he failed to establish two qualifying contacts for each respondent. As for Bosket, we agree with the trial court that petitioner failed to establish two qualifying contacts. However, as for Carter, we conclude that there were sufficient contacts to support the issuance of an SPO. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing the SPO petition against Bosket, and we reverse the judgment dismissing the SPO petition against Carter.
On appeal, petitioner seeks de novo review because, he asserts, the trial court improperly created a " categorical exemption for disputes between neighbors" and relied on that exemption when evaluating the facts in the record. However, because petitioner's argument raises an issue of law and this is not otherwise an " exceptional case" justifying de novo review, we review the trial court's factual findings for " any evidence" and its legal conclusions for errors of law. See ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Brown v. Roach, 249 Or.App. 579, 580, 277 P.3d 628 (2012).
As in other equitable proceedings, " we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013) (stating our standard of review in juvenile dependency cases). We state the facts consistently with that standard.
In the spring of 2010, petitioner moved into a condominium with his domestic partner, Kirk. Their condominium [261 Or.App. 136] is located next to, and shares a wall with, Bosket's unit. Carter's condominium is located on the other side of Bosket's unit. In the summer of 2011, petitioner became involved with the homeowner's association (HOA) and was appointed to serve as facilities chairman. In that capacity, he oversaw a number of maintenance projects in the complex. Prior to taking that position, his relationship with both neighbors was cordial; however, after he became facilities chairman, the relationships became strained and disagreements about various maintenance projects led to several of the contacts at issue.
I. INCIDENTS WITH RESPONDENT BOCKET
The first incident occurred on July 28, 2011. Bosket erected a large garage sale sign in his front yard and petitioner asked him if he had sought the necessary HOA consent to display the sign. Bosket became " very agitated and very angry, got red in the face and started yelling" at petitioner about the " damned [HOA] board." Trying to avoid a confrontation, petitioner returned to his residence, but Bosket followed him and continued to yell and angrily shake his clenched fists at petitioner. As petitioner stood at the top of his front stairs about to enter his unit, Bosket yelled, " Come down here, motherfucker, and I'll show you." Later that afternoon, Bosket ...