State v. Feyko

“Service of process or other legal documents upon the [protected person] is not a violation of this section if the [protected person] is served as provided in ORCP 7 or 9.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(12). “Service . . . upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to that . . . party; by mailing it to the . . . party’s last known address[.]” Or. Rule Civ. Pro § 9B.

Defendant appealed a judgment for two counts of contempt by violating the terms of his Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that by mailing A, his former spouse, legal documents via certified mail he violated the restraining order term prohibiting him from personally delivering any documents to A.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the restraining order does not prohibit him from sending legal documents to A via certified mail.  In response, the state argued that Defendant is prohibited from personally sending any documents because it is the same as personal service. “Service of process or other legal documents upon the [protected person] is not a violation of this section if the [protected person] is served as provided in ORCP 7 or 9.”  Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(12).  “Service . . . upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to that . . . party; by mailing it to the . . . party’s last known address[.]” Or. Rule Civ. Pro § 9B.  The Court of Appeals concluded that Defendant was in contempt of court on Count 1 because the documents the Defendant sent and the method of delivery were not prohibited under the FAPA order.  Reversed as to Count 1; otherwise affirmed.