M. A., Petitioner-Respondent, v. MOUKTABIS (2021)

Petitioner obtained a restraining order against respondent under the Family Abuse Protection Act (FAPA). ORS 107.718. Respondent sought to have the FAPA order set aside under ORCP 71, alleging misrepresentation, fraud, and newly discovered evidence, among other things. Respondent requested an evidentiary hearing, or, in the alternative, oral argument on the motion. The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing. Respondent appeals, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion and request for a hearing. Although petitioner did not file a brief on appeal, petitioner did file a notice of probable mootness. Having concluded that the matter is not moot, we agree that respondent was entitled to a hearing on the motion to set aside the order. See UTCR 5.050(1); Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or. 647, 652, 871 P.2d 1006 (1994) (“UTCR 5.050(1) requires a trial court to grant oral argument if it is requested in the form specified.”). We further conclude that the court's error substantially prejudiced respondent's rights, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Id. (holding that failure to grant oral argument under UTCR 5.050(1) is reversible error if it substantially affected the appellant's rights); State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Bicar, Inc., 119 Or. App. 458, 461, 850 P.2d 1163 (1993).

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM