Court of Appeals hears appeal in Schmidt v. Peterson over alleged credit‑monitoring stalking

The Utah Court of Appeals on the panel of Judge Oliver, Judge Harris and Judge Tenney heard oral argument in Schmidt v. Peterson, in which Stephen Schmidt sought review of a district court’s denial of a civil stalking injunction. Appellant counsel Julie Nelson told the court that, beginning in February 2021, a fake Equifax account was opened using Kyle Peterson’s credit card number and that a recurring monthly charge—about $9.95—posted for roughly 21 to 22 months.

Nelson said the stalking claim should be considered on the whole record because the same summer that the monitoring continued Mr. Schmidt received “nasty profane messages” and other earlier incidents that the district court, she argued, failed to analyze on the record. “When we look at the entire course of conduct, which case law requires . . . a holistic analysis,” Nelson told the panel, urging reversal.

Emily Adams, counsel for Mr. Peterson, disputed that the district court erred. Adams said the petition and the second evidentiary hearing focused on credit monitoring as the operative “course of conduct,” and that exhibits and prior transcripts from an earlier proceeding were not offered into evidence at the second hearing. She emphasized that the civil standard requires a preponderance of the evidence that Peterson knowingly participated in the conduct; she told the panel the record contains no evidence that Peterson reviewed his credit card statements or otherwise knew of the recurring charges. Adams also noted that the criminal docket related to these matters had been resolved: “Kyle Peterson’s criminal case was dismissed back in June of 2024 and Angela Peterson took a plea in advance to identity fraud,” she said.

The panel’s questioning centered on two recurring themes: (1) whether Utah case law requires a district court to articulate, on the record, why it accepts or rejects prior incidents as part of a cumulative course of conduct, and (2) whether the record here supplied the necessary evidence to meet the preponderance standard that Mr. Peterson knowingly engaged in the alleged conduct. One justice explored the presumption of regularity—whether a silent record can be read to mean the district judge considered but did not rely on prior incidents—while another analogized the concern to limits on using prior bad acts to infer present culpability.

Both sides acknowledged gaps in the trial record. Nelson pointed to attachments and an exhibit list that she said put the prior incidents before the court; Adams countered that merely attaching material to a petition does not automatically make it evidence at a subsequent hearing and that key exhibits (texts, photographs) were not admitted during the evidentiary hearing. The defense also repeatedly noted the absence of testimony showing Peterson saw or acted on his credit‑card statements, which counsels argued is central to a finding of knowing participation.

The Court took the appeal under advisement and said it would issue a decision in due course.

What happens next: the three‑judge panel will issue a written opinion resolving whether the district court’s factfinding was legally sufficient and whether any omission requires remand for further findings.