O'KANE

Mark Irvine appeals the domestic violence prevention order restraining him from coming within 100 yards of respondent Kerri O’Kane or her residence. Irvine contends the court had no jurisdiction to issue the order as O’Kane did not establish that she is a protected person under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Act). (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). Specifically, Irvine submits that O’Kane cannot be considered a “cohabitant” within the meaning of sections 6209 and 6211. We have determined Irvine’s appeal is meritorious and, accordingly, reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

In August 1994, O’Kane had sublet a bedroom at 134 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco from the lessee, Kristie Schimmelman. At approximately the same time Irvine had sublet the downstairs unit from Schimmelman. O’Kane, Irvine and Schimmelman had access to some of the same common areas in the house, i.e., the bathroom, kitchen, living room and dining room. There was no romantic or friendly relationship between O’Kane and Irvine. Prior to their individual sublease agreements with Schimmelman, the parties were not acquainted with each other.

After the parties had been residing at 134 Ashton…