Rezoana v. Lavey

── Rezoana v. Lavey ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: ROMIO REZOANA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. HOBBES CLARK LAVEY, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0765 FC FILED 05-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2025-001574 The Honorable Richard J. Hinz, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Romio Rezoana Plaintiff/Appellee Hobbes Clark LaVey, Gilbert Defendant/Appellant  REZOANA v. LAVEY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Hobbes Clark LaVey appeals the continuation of an order of protection in favor of Romio Rezoana. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 LaVey and Rezoana have a child together. Rezoana filed a petition for an order of protection in April 2025. In support of her petition, she listed several incidents dating back to August 2022. The most recent incident was sometime between December 2024 and February 2025 when LaVey allegedly placed a tracking device on her car without her knowledge. She also alleged that between August 2022 and December 2023, LaVey punched, bit, and kicked her on three different occasions and threatened to kill her if she left him. ¶3 The superior court issued an ex parte protective order. LaVey requested a contested hearing, at which both parties testified. The superior court continued the protective order, finding a preponderance of the evidence showed that LaVey may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year. The order did not specify which incident supported the protective order or list a statutory domestic violence offense. ¶4 LaVey timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b). See also Ariz. R. Prot. Ord. P. 42(a)(2), (b)(2). DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the superior court's continuation of an order of protection following an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion but review questions of law de novo. Shah v. Vakharwala, 244 Ariz. 201, 202, ¶ 5 (App. 2018). LaVey challenges the order of protection on several grounds. At the outset, we note there is no transcript of the evidentiary hearing. LaVey must ensure the record on appeal contains the transcripts necessary for this Court to consider the issues on appeal. See ARCAP 11(c)(1); State ex 2  REZOANA v. LAVEY Decision of the Court rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30, ¶ 16 (App. 2003). When such transcripts are not included, "we assume the missing portions of the record would support the [superior] court's findings and conclusions." Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16. ¶6 LaVey claims the protective order is based on hearsay evidence from Rezoana that a sheriff told her LaVey admitted placing a tracking device on her car. He argues that her hearsay testimony was unreliable and violated his right to due process. In a protective-order hearing, the court has discretion to admit any relevant evidence provided its probative value is not "substantially outweighed" by a counterv