In the Matter of A. M. M., Petitioner-Respondent,
Brandon Jack HOEFER, Respondent-Appellant
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2014.
Clackamas County Circuit Court CV13020176. Deanne L. Darling, Judge.
Michael P. De Muniz argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Ferder Casebeer French & Thompson, LLP.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
[269 Or.App. 219] NAKAMOTO, J.
Respondent appeals a judgment imposing a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against him under ORS 30.866. Respondent contends, as he did before the trial court, that there was insufficient evidence to support entry of the SPO. We agree and, therefore, reverse.
The trial court ruled:
" [B]y a preponderance of the evidence the bare minimum to sustain the stalking order has been proven. There is contact, repeated and unwanted contact, that * * * is, in part, words, * * * but it is not just a words case.
" I'm finding that there is repeated and unwanted contact that an objectively reasonable
person, under the totality of the circumstances would be alarmed by, and that [respondent] knew was unwanted and represents ...