LARRY JOPLIN, Viee-Chief Judge.
1 1 Appellant, Steve White, seeks review of the trial courts order granting David Hole-man a protective order against White for alleged harassment and threatening emails White sent to Holeman over the course of several months. White alleges three propositions of error on appeal. First, he contends that the victim protection order (VPO) was stale, having not been brought within the proper time-frame allotted under 22 O.S8. Supp.2009 § 60.4(B)(4). Second, he alleges Plaintiffs harassment allegations are so subjective with respect to the Plaintiffs feelings of unease that the statute is being applied in an unconstitutionally overbroad and vague manner. Third, White asserts the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Whites email responses to Holeman constituted harassment, no finding of harassment should have occurred and no VPO should have been issued.
T2 Appellant/White is married to Hole-mans former wife. Holeman originally filed a petition for protective order on September 14, 2009, the day White married Holemans ex-wife, for an event that allegedly occurred on September 9, 2009. This petition was not served on White and expired, according to the procedure outlined by statute. 22 O.S. Supp.2009 § 60.4.
T3 Over six months after having filed the initial petition, Holeman sought again to pursue the protective order, due to unwanted emails he received from White, when White, via his wifes email account, responded to emails Holeman sent to Mrs. White. The record contains approximately seven emails from White to Holeman, spanning from February 2009 to April 2010.
{4 The email exchanges between White and Holeman were a back and forth stream of insults and one-upmanship. The record indicates Holeman would send an email to his ex-wife, in what could be perceived as a less-than-civil tone, often questioning her devotion to her and Holemans son, threatening to report her to the social security commission for fraud, or demanding she not use the last name Holeman. White would respond to the email on his wifes behalf in some misguided attempt at chivalrous defense, sometimes referring to Holeman as a drunk, pondering how Holeman could live with himself, and repeatedly insulting Holemans intelligence. On more than one occasion, White threatened to contact Holemans eurrent love interest and inform her of her boyfriends true personality. In what are perhaps the two most menacing statements, contained in two different emails, White writes, [s]hould you continue to downgrade, denigrate or otherwise demean my wife, look over your shoulder ... .... I will be there. In another, White writes to Holeman that persons have been severely injured or maimed or even lost there (sic) miserable life by continuing these practices.
T 5 There was no physical contact between the two men. There is no evidence in the record that cither were prone to altercations or ever had any altercations between themselves or anyone else. They last spoke on the phone in 2007. White was in Holemans driveway on two occasions in order for his wife to drop something off for Mrs. Whites and Holemans son. Mrs. White is stricken with multiple sclerosis and has difficulty driving. Although Holeman took great exception to White being in his driveway, there is no indication anything threatening occurred, White did not see Holeman on either occasion, the record does not indicate there was any valid protective order in effect barring White from the premises, although White knew he was not welcome on the property, and both men admitted Mrs. White was probably not capable of driving herself to deliver the items to her son.
T 6 The court noted that Holeman, seeking the protective order, was ten years younger than his wifes current husband, White. Holeman considered himself to be in excellent physical condition. At the same time, White was almost ten years older and an overweight, disabled veteran, who was admittedly not in particularly good physical condition.
T7 The trial court found Whites email responses to be harassment and determined the harassment would cause the regular, reasonable person to be upset by their content. The trial court acknowledged that Whites emails were responsive to statements he believed should not have been sent to his wife, but the court opined that Whites choice to respond in a harassing manner could not be condoned any more than the court could condone White responding in a violent manner. As a result, the trial court issued the VPO and ordered White to have no more communication with Mr. Holeman for any reason. From this order White brought this appeal.
18 The trial courts issuance of a protective order is reviewed by the appellate court for an abuse of discretion. Curry v. Streater, 2009 OK 5, ¶ 8, 213 P.3d 550, 554. Under an abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court examines the evidence in the record and reverses only if the trial courts decision is clearly against the evidence or is contrary to a governing principle of law. Id. (citing State ex rel. Tal v. Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 97, ¶ 3, 61 P.3d 234, 240).
T9 We note Holeman did not file a response to the petition in error, nor did he file a response brief in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal proceeds on Appellants brief only. In a case proceeding on the appellants brief only, this court is under no duty to search the record for a basis to affirm the judgment, and where the appellants brief is reasonably supportive of the allegations of error this court will ordinarily grant the relief sought by the appellant. Sneed v. Sneed, 1978 OK 138, 585 P.2d 1363. However, (reversal is never automatic.] [The trial courts judgment] is presumed correct until the contrary has been shown by the record. Hamid v. Sew Original, 1982 OK 46, 645 P.2d 496, 497 (citations omitted).
110 We first examine Appellants third proposition of error, alleging the trial court abused its discretion in finding Whites emails to Holeman constituted harassment. The Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 22 O.S.2001 § 60, et seq., defines harassment as follows:
3. Harassment means a knowing and willful course or pattern of conduct by a family or household member or an individual who is or has been involved in a dating relationship with the person, directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial distress to the person. Harassment shall include, but not be limited to, harassing or obscene telephone calls in violation of Section 1172 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and fear of death or bodily injury;
22 O.S. Supp.2005 § 60.1(8). Therefore, in breaking down the harassment definition for this particular case, we must determine if the trial court had a basis for its finding that 1) a pattern of conduct existed; 2) directed at a specific person; 3) which seriously alarms or annoys; 4) and serves no legitimate purpose; 5) that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress; 6) and in fact did cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
111 To reverse under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court must find the trial courts conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous, against reason and evidence. Curry, 213 P.3d at 554; Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. Little, 1998 OK 116, ¶ 6, 860 P.2d 226, 228. It is clear from the courts statements at the end of the hearing that Whites email telling Holeman to look over his shoulder and Whites threats to inform Holemans girlfriend and friends of his true nature were the most compelling elements of harassment in the courts evaluation of the evidence.
{12 This is a case based entirely upon emails. These people do not speak, they do not use the phone, they do not seek out encounters with one another. The record indicates this is a pattern of an ex-husband sending less-than-civil emails to his disabled ex-wife, current husband sends insulting, less-than-civil emails in return and the cycle continues for about seven emails over about fourteen months. If the offending emails were more frequent than this, the record does not reveal it.
{13 The trial court indicated Holeman would be annoyed by these emails, but the record does not support how the trial court made the leap from annoyed to issuing the VPO. In this respect, Holemans allegations seeking his protective order are similar to the aunts in Curry v. Streater, 2009 OK 5, 213 P.3d 550. In Curry, the aunt alleged her nephew said, Get this car out of here, or Im going to whip your ass. Id. at 558. The nephews statement is similar to the ones made by email to Holeman, although in Curry the nephew and aunt were in physical proximity to one other. The court noted the importance of the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, which was designed to prevent violence before it happens, and examined whether the threat to the aunt was real or merely perceived. Id. at 555-56. The Supreme Court determined the record did not support the aunts allegations of threatened violence and the VPO was wrongfully issued.
T14 The subjective nature of Holemans fear or emotional distress response in this case is similarly problematic. In Curry, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined application of a plaintiffs subjective viewpoint would produce inconsistent results based on individualized perceptions{,] and it was important to avoid this subjective application of plaintiffs point of view when considering whether all elements of harassment were present. Curry v. Streater, 2009 OK 5, 16, 213 P.3d 550, 556. The Curry court also determined the Act does not place the focus on a plaintiffs subjective perception, which is why objective facts are especially vital to the courts evaluation of a plaintiffs emotional distress or fear. Id. Holemans case, like the Curry case, lacks objective facts that would support the courts determination that Holeman actually feared death, bodily injury or experienced emotional distress.
15 The Protection from Domestic Abuse Act serves a vital purpose, to prevent violence. 22 O.S. Supp.2003, §§ 60.1-60.2; Curry, 213 P.3d at 554-55. To issue Holemans protective order trivializes the serious issues the act is charged with addressing. Hole-mans annoyance and inability to turn off the computer, delete the emails or craft some other means of ceasing his communication with White is not reason enough to issue a VPO when key elements of the definition of harassment are lacking. 22 O.S. Supp.2005 § 60.1(8). The trial court abused its discretion in issuing the protective order against White in this case. The decision of the trial court is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the protective order. Having determined the VPO should not have issued, we need not address Appellants first two propositions of error.
16 REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BUETTNER, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.