Mitzel v. Larson, 20160208
| Decision Date | 07 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20160208,20160208 |
| Citation | 890 N.W.2d 817 |
| Parties | James Daniel MITZEL, Petitioner v. Katherine Deanna LARSON, Respondent and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
James D. Mitzel, petitioner; no appearance.
Katherine D. Larson, 414 19th Avenue NE #2, Minneapolis, MN 55418, respondent and appellant; on brief.
William R. Hartl, P.O. Box 319, Rugby, N.D. 58368–0319, for respondent and appellant.
[¶ 1] Katherine Larson appeals from a district court disorderly conduct restraining order issued against her. We reverse, concluding the court abused its discretion in issuing the order.
[¶ 2] Larson and James Mitzel were in a romantic relationship from June 2015 to January 2016. After the relationship ended, Larson obtained an order for protection in Minnesota, alleging Mitzel had physically and sexually assaulted her in January 2016.
[¶ 3] In February 2016 Mitzel petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Larson, alleging she had harassed him and his wife through email, text messages, and social media. The court issued a temporary thirty-day restraining order and scheduled a hearing for March 3, 2016. The hearing was continued until March 17, 2016, and after the hearing, the court issued a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order against Larson. The order prohibited Larson from contacting Mitzel and excluded her from his home.
[¶ 4] Larson argues the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over her because a sheriff did not personally serve her the temporary restraining order under N.D.C.C. § 12.1–31.2–01(5)(b). She also argues the parties did not agree to continue the hearing from March 3, 2016, to March 17, 2016.
[¶ 5] A party may waive a personal jurisdiction argument by voluntarily submitting to the personal jurisdiction of the court. Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig , 2010 ND 138, ¶ 57, 785 N.W.2d 863. Regarding the continuance of the hearing, the following exchange took place between the court and Larson's attorney:
Larson waived her personal jurisdiction arguments by appearing at the hearing without objecting to service of the temporary restraining order or the continuance of the hearing.
[¶ 6] Larson argues the district court abused its discretion in issuing the disorderly conduct restraining order against her. Larson also argues the court failed to make specific findings of fact supporting its decision.
[¶ 7] On review of a district court's decision on a disorderly conduct restraining order:
This Court will not reverse a district court's decision to grant a restraining order or to conduct a hearing absent an abuse of discretion. The district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.
Combs v. Lund , 2015 ND 10, ¶ 4, 858 N.W.2d 311 (quoting Hanisch v. Kroshus , 2013 ND 37, ¶ 9, 827 N.W.2d 528 ).
[¶ 8] Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., addresses when a district court must make findings of fact, which we have also said applies to disorderly conduct restraining orders. See Combs , 2015 ND 10, ¶ 17, 858 N.W.2d 311 (). The court should state its findings of fact with sufficient specificity to assist this Court's review and to afford a clear understanding of the court's decision. Interest of J.A.H. , 2014 ND 196, ¶ 12, 855 N.W.2d 394. Conclusory and general findings do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). J.A.H. , at ¶ 12.
[¶ 9] Section 12.1–31.2–01(1), N.D.C.C., defines disorderly conduct as "intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person." "Because of the stigma and grave consequences to the respondent associated with a disorderly conduct restraining order, we have repeatedly stressed that a person who petitions for an order must allege specific facts or threats." Cusey v. Nagel , 2005 ND 84, ¶ 11, 695 N.W.2d 697. It is not enough to show the respondent's actions are unwanted; rather, the petitioner must show specific unwanted acts that are intended to affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person. Id. at ¶ 7. "Subjective fear is insufficient to support a disorderly conduct restraining order." Id. It is not enough under N.D.C.C. § 12.1–31.2–01 that the petitioner wants the other person out of the petitioner's life. Cusey , at ¶ 13.
[¶ 10] Mitzel's petition and testimony alleged Larson harassed his wife through Facebook and email. However, N.D.C.C. § 12.1–31.2–01 does not authorize the petitioner to seek a restraining order based upon disorderly conduct directed at another person. Cusey , 2005 ND 84, ¶ 12, 695 N.W.2d 697. Mitzel's wife is not a party in this action; therefore, we need not address Larson's alleged actions directed toward Mitzel's wife.
[¶ 11] Mitzel alleges Larson harassed him through text messages, and the record includes a lengthy text message conversation between them. In general, each party accused the other of ruining their life, and each party called the other derogatory names. Some of the messages indicate Mitzel requested Larson to stop communicating; however, he kept responding to her messages and the two-way conversation continued. He admitted at the hearing he responded to Larson's text messages and the conversation went back and forth. Other than generally stating he feared for his wife and children, he did not testify specifically how the text messages from Larson affected his safety, security, or privacy.
[¶ 12] The district court used a standard disorderly conduct restraining order form containing no specific findings as to how Larson's actions affected Mitzel's safety, security, or privacy. The district court did not provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hamilton v. State
-
J.B. v. R.B.
...to show that an individual engaged in disorderly conduct. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(3) ; see also Mitzel v. Larson , 2017 ND 48, ¶ 12, 890 N.W.2d 817 (failing to allege specific facts or threats requires denying the petition, as a matter of law). To protect the respondent’s right to due proce......
-
Rekow v. Durheim
...). A petitioner must show how the respondent's conduct affected his safety, security, or privacy. Mitzel v. Larson , 2017 ND 48, ¶ 12, 890 N.W.2d 817. Conclusory statements on the record by the district court will not suffice. Id. [¶8] Additionally, Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies to diso......
-
Michael J. Tharaldson Irrevocable Trust II Dated Oct. 3 v. Tharaldson
...personal jurisdiction argument by voluntarily submitting to the personal jurisdiction of the court." Mitzel v. Larson , 2017 ND 48, ¶ 5, 890 N.W.2d 817. In Mitzel , this Court concluded personal jurisdiction was waived because the party appeared at a hearing without objecting to service. Id......