K. E. A., Petitioner-Respondent,
MICHAEL LEE HALVORSON, Respondent-Appellant
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2014.
Washington County Circuit Court. C122290CV. Suzanne Upton, Judge.
Emilia Gardner, C. Michael Arnold, and Arnold Law Office, LLC, filed the brief for appellant.
David J. Celuch argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.[*]
[267 Or.App. 375] HADLOCK, J.
Respondent appeals the entry of a stalking protective order (SPO), contending that the evidence was insufficient to support it. We agree with respondent and therefore reverse.
Respondent requests that we review the record de novo. See ORS 19.415(3) (the Court of Appeals may, in our sole discretion, review an equitable case de novo ). However, because we do not consider this an " exceptional case," we deny that request. See ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (" The Court of Appeals will exercise its discretion to try the cause anew on the record or to make one or more factual findings anew on the record only in exceptional cases." ). " Therefore, we review the facts for any evidence and the legal conclusions based on those facts for errors of law." Langford v. Langford, 262 Or.App. 409, 410, 324 P.3d 623 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
ORS 30.866 governs when a court may issue a stalking protective order:
" (1) A person may bring a civil action in a circuit court for a court's stalking protective order or for damages, or both, against a person if:
" (a) The person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person's immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person;
" (b) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim's situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and
" (c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim's ...