Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716 (2026)

Hearing; order; certificate of compliance; effect on title to real property; no undertaking required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      107.716 Hearing; order; certificate of compliance; effect on title to real property; no undertaking required. (1) If the respondent requests a hearing pursuant to ORS 107.718 (10), the court shall hold the hearing within 21 days after the request. However, if the respondent contests the order granting temporary child custody to the petitioner, the court shall hold the hearing within five days after the request.

      (2)(a) If the court determines under ORS 107.718 (2) that exceptional circumstances exist that affect the custody of a child, the court shall hold a hearing within 14 days after issuance of the restraining order. The clerk of the court shall provide a notice of the hearing along with the petition and order to the petitioner and, in accordance with ORS 107.718 (8), to the county sheriff for service on the respondent.

      (b) The respondent may request an earlier hearing, to be held within five days after the request. The hearing request form shall be available from the clerk of the court in the form prescribed by the State Court Administrator under ORS 107.718 (7). If the respondent requests an earlier hearing, the clerk of the court shall notify the parties of the scheduled hearing date by mailing a notice of the time and place of hearing to the addresses provided in the petition or, for the respondent, to the address provided in the request for hearing, or as otherwise designated by a party.

      (c) When the court schedules a hearing under this subsection, the respondent may not request a hearing under ORS 107.718 (10).

      (3) In a hearing held pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section:

      (a) The court may continue any order issued under ORS 107.718 if the court finds that:

      (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.710 (1);

      (B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and

      (C) The respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner or the petitioner’s child.

      (b) The court may cancel or change any order issued under ORS 107.718 and may assess against either party a reasonable attorney fee and such costs as may be incurred in the proceeding.

      (4)(a) If service of a notice of hearing is inadequate to provide a party with sufficient notice of the hearing held pursuant to ORS 107.718 (2) or (10), the court may extend the date of the hearing for up to five days so that the party may seek representation.

      (b) If one party is represented by an attorney at a hearing held pursuant to ORS 107.718 (2) or (10), the court may extend the date of the hearing for up to five days at the other party’s request so that the other party may seek representation.

      (5) If the court continues the order, with or without changes, at a hearing about which the respondent received actual notice and the opportunity to participate, the court shall include in the order a certificate in substantially the following form in a separate section immediately above the signature of the judge:

______________________________________________________________________________

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

WITH THE VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN ACT

 

This protective order meets all full faith and credit requirements of the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. 2265 (1994). This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. The respondent was afforded notice and timely opportunity to be heard as provided by the law of this jurisdiction. This order is valid and entitled to enforcement in this and all other jurisdictions.

______________________________________________________________________________

      (6) The court may approve any consent agreement to bring about a cessation of abuse of the parties. However, the court may not approve a term in a consent agreement that provides for restraint of a party to the agreement unless the other party petitioned for and was granted an order under ORS 107.710. An order or consent agreement made under this section may be amended at any time and shall continue in effect for a period of two years from the date of the order issued under ORS 107.718, or until superseded as provided in ORS 107.722.

      (7) No order or agreement made under ORS 107.705 to 107.720, 133.310 and 133.381 shall in any manner affect title to any real property.

      (8) No undertaking shall be required in any proceeding under ORS 107.700 to 107.735.

      (9) Any proceeding under ORS 107.700 to 107.735 shall be in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies. [1981 c.780 §6 (enacted in lieu of 107.715); 1985 c.629 §3; 1987 c.805 §3; 1995 c.637 §4; 1995 c.794 §2; 1997 c.707 §15; 1999 c.617 §5; 1999 c.1052 §14; 2005 c.536 §1; 2007 c.11 §6; 2019 c.144 §1; 2023 c.140 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “” Respondent contends that the plain meaning of that statute indicates that the court, “in a judicial session, conducted according to ORS 107.716(1) and for the purposes of deciding issues of fact or law relating to the issuance and/or denial of a restraining order issued under…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020). · cites it 3× “ORS 107.716(3) (2017).1 1 In 2019, the legislature amended ORS 107.”
Nearing v. Weaver, 670 P.2d 137 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “715 (1979), now ORS 107.716, and mandatory provisions for the warrantless arrest upon probable cause of a person believed to have violated such an *139 order.”
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “" The court entered an order continuing the restraining order for its full one-year duration, ORS 107.716(6), and also granting petitioner custody of the parties' children.”
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “ORS 107.716(1) provides: “If the respondent requests a hearing pursuant to ORS 107.”
P. K. W. v. Steagall, 452 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “In 2019, the legislature enacted legislation that amended ORS 107.716 regarding the findings a court must make to continue a restraining order at a contested hearing.”
O. D. v. Ranel, 326 Or. App. 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “See ORS 107.716(3)(a) (describing court’s authority to continue a FAPA order).”
R. M. v. McNeer, 341 Or. App. 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 107.716(3). Depending on the evidentiary record developed, a trial court may be entitled to conclude that the parties’ separation could increase the chance of abuse, and it may reasonably infer that future abuse may occur despite the passage of time.”
Cottongim v. Woods, 928 P.2d 361 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 107.716(1); ORS 107.718(8). After the hearing was held, the lower court ruled that the restraining order would remain in effect in its entirety, and entered an order so stating on May 2,1995.”
K. R. M. v. Baker, 515 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may con- tinue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within [180 days]; “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and Cite as 321 Or App 313 (2022) 317 “(C) The respondent…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(1) — 3 cases
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 107.716(1) provides: “If the respondent requests a hearing pursuant to ORS 107.”
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “” Respondent contends that the plain meaning of that statute indicates that the court, “in a judicial session, conducted according to ORS 107.716(1) and for the purposes of deciding issues of fact or law relating to the issuance and/or denial of a restraining order issued under…”
Cottongim v. Woods, 928 P.2d 361 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 107.716(1); ORS 107.718(8). After the hearing was held, the lower court ruled that the restraining order would remain in effect in its entirety, and entered an order so stating on May 2,1995.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(2) — 1 case
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 107.716(1) provides: “If the respondent requests a hearing pursuant to ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3) — 16 cases
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “” Respondent contends that the plain meaning of that statute indicates that the court, “in a judicial session, conducted according to ORS 107.716(1) and for the purposes of deciding issues of fact or law relating to the issuance and/or denial of a restraining order issued under…”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020). “ORS 107.716(3) (2017).1 1 In 2019, the legislature amended ORS 107.”
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
P. K. W. v. Steagall, 452 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In 2019, the legislature enacted legislation that amended ORS 107.716 regarding the findings a court must make to continue a restraining order at a contested hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(a) — 20 cases
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020). “ORS 107.716(3) (2017).1 1 In 2019, the legislature amended ORS 107.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
O. D. v. Ranel, 326 Or. App. 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “See ORS 107.716(3)(a) (describing court’s authority to continue a FAPA order).”
K. E. J. v. Jessee, 492 P.3d 1264 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(a)(A) — 1 case
M. Z. v. Horning, 348 Or. App. 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(a)(B) — 7 cases
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
M. M. B. v. Rivera, 340 Or. App. 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
K. E. B. v. Bradley (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
M. M. B. v. Rivera, 340 Or. App. 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(a)(C) — 8 cases
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
A. V. V. v. Sperla, 339 Or. App. 632 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
A. V. V. v. Sperla, 339 Or. App. 632 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
A. A. R. v. Rustad, 511 P.3d 88 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
R. C. v. Brady, 323 Or. App. 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(a)(c) — 1 case
K. R. M. v. Baker, 515 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may con- tinue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within [180 days]; “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and Cite as 321 Or App 313 (2022) 317 “(C) The respondent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(3)(b) — 7 cases
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Respondent’s recent physical abuse of petitioner, combined with threats of violence and a subsequent violation of the ex parte order, together supported a finding that petitioner’s fear of respondent was reasonable under ORS 107.716 (3)(a)(B) and that respondent was a credible…”
O. D. v. Ranel, 326 Or. App. 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “See ORS 107.716(3)(a) (describing court’s authority to continue a FAPA order).”
O. D. v. Ranel, 338 Or. App. 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
O. D. v. Ranel, 338 Or. App. 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
K. R. M. v. Baker, 515 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may con- tinue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within [180 days]; “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and Cite as 321 Or App 313 (2022) 317 “(C) The respondent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(5) — 2 cases
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.716(6) — 8 cases
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “" The court entered an order continuing the restraining order for its full one-year duration, ORS 107.716(6), and also granting petitioner custody of the parties' children.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “If a restraining order was granted, the respondent had 30 days to request a contested hearing, after which the court would decide whether to continue or dismiss the restraining order. ORS 107.”
Rosiles-Flores v. Browning, 145 P.3d 328 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Lowes v. Thompson, 374 Or. 23 (Or. 2025).
K. R. M. v. Baker, 515 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may con- tinue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within [180 days]; “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and Cite as 321 Or App 313 (2022) 317 “(C) The respondent…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.