Opinion
A23-0402
10-24-2023
Charity Amber Billings, Respondent, v. Aaron Louis Olson, Appellant.
Dakota County District Court File No. 19AV-CV-19-38
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Diane B. Bratvold Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Aaron Louis Olson challenges a district court order denying his motion to vacate or modify an existing harassment restraining order (HRO) that prohibits Olson from having any contact with respondent Charity Amber Billings.
2. In January 2019, Billings filed a second petition for an HRO against Olson. On August 17, 2020, following a hearing, the district court issued an HRO prohibiting Olson from contacting Billings, directly or indirectly, or being within one mile of her home, work, or school. The district court ordered that the HRO "remain in effect until 8/14/2025, unless changed by a later court order," after determining that Olson "has violated a prior or existing restraining order on two or more occasions." Olson appealed the HRO, which we affirmed in May 2021. Billings v. Olson, No. A20-1284, 2021 WL 1962517, at *4 (Minn.App. May 17, 2021), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2021).
3. On March 10, 2023, Olson filed a motion in district court to "Vacate or Modify the Existing Harassment Restraining Order, and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing." Olson's motion alleged that Billings "has contacted" Olson "on several occasions, as late as February of this year, inviting response from Respondent and invalidating the Court's outstanding HRO in this matter." Olson's motion then requested "an evidentiary hearing to show the aforementioned and to move the Court for dismissal or modification of the HRO."
4. On March 13, 2023, the district court denied Olson's motion, reasoning that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The district court determined that Olson was not entitled to relief under either the HRO statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5 (2022), or the rule providing relief from a judgment or order, Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. That same day, Olson filed a letter requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that there are "compelling circumstances" to vacate or modify the HRO and that he is entitled to relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), (d), and (f), as well as Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (2022). Two days later, the district court denied Olson's request. Olson appeals.
5. Minnesota's HRO statute provides that a "restraining order must be for a fixed period of not more than two years" unless the district court finds, among other things, that "the respondent has violated a prior or existing restraining order on two or more occasions," in which case "relief granted by the restraining order may be for a period of up to 50 years." Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5. The statute also provides that when "the court orders relief for a period of up to 50 years . . . the respondent named in the restraining order may request to have the restraining order vacated or modified if the order has been in effect for at least five years and the respondent has not violated the order." Id., subd. 5(d).
6. We review the denial of a motion to vacate an order and the denial of a hearing for an HRO for an abuse of discretion. Houck v. Houck, 979 N.W.2d 907, 910 (Minn.App. 2022); Fiduciary Found., LLC ex rel. Rothfusz v. Brown, 834 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Minn.App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). A district court abuses its discretion if its findings of fact are not supported by the record or it improperly applies the law. Honke v. Honke, 960 N.W.2d 261, 265 (Minn. 2021). We review a district court's legal conclusions de novo. Houck, 979 N.W.2d at 910.
7. Before discussing the issues raised in Olson's pro se brief to this court, we first note that Olson's arguments on appeal do not challenge the district court's determination that he is not entitled to vacate or modify the HRO based on the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(d) (allowing a motion to vacate or modify an HRO if it has been in effect for at least five years and respondent has not violated the order). Next, we address Olson's two arguments on appeal that appear to challenge the district court's decision to deny relief under rule 60.02.
8. Olson first argues that the district court abused its discretion because it did not consider "all of the evidence." After reviewing Olson's motion, we conclude that it alleged that Billings "contacted" him "on several occasions" but did not include any details, a memorandum of law, supporting affidavit, or exhibits. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.03(a)(3), (4) (requiring dispositive motions to include "affidavits and exhibits to be submitted in conjunction with the motion" as well as a "memorandum of law"). In short, Olson's motion had only general allegations that Billings contacted him, but even if those allegations were relevant to the continued validity or appropriateness of the HRO, "allegations, standing alone, are not 'evidence.'" Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 848 N.W.2d 224, 230 (Minn. 2014). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider evidence because Olson offered only general allegations for the district court to consider.
9. Second, Olson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without considering Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. This rule allows a district court to "relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . ., order, or proceeding" under a narrow set of circumstances, including cases in which there is newly discovered evidence, the judgment is void, or the judgment is no longer equitable. Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), (d), (e). In his brief to this court, Olson contends that recent communications from Billings are "new evidence" and "frustrate the purpose of that HRO," making it "void" and "no longer equitable."
10. Olson's second argument fails for three reasons. First, the district court explicitly considered rule 60.02 as stated in the order denying relief on that basis. Olson's motion to the district court did not offer or describe new evidence, did not argue that the judgment is void, and did not contend that the HRO is no longer equitable. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), (d), (e). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Olson's motion with only a brief statement. Olson's brief to this court has more references to rule 60.02, but we generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) ("A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it." (quotation omitted)); see also Rothfusz, 834 N.W.2d at 762 (applying Thiele in an appeal of a denial of a motion to vacate an HRO).
11. Second, Olson's brief to this court does not include any legal analysis or citations to precedential caselaw that support his claim that he is entitled to relief under rule 60.02. Olson's brief merely quotes portions of rule 60.02 and alleges that they apply to his case. An appellate court cannot make arguments on a party's behalf when they fail to brief an issue adequately. See State Dep't of Lab. &Indus. by the Special Comp. Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach issues inadequately briefed). "An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." Schoepke v. Alexander Smith &Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971).
12. Third, even if we consider Olson's rule 60.02 arguments, they fail on the merits. Olson's brief to this court makes only vague statements about new evidence, the purpose of the HRO, and equitable concerns. Our careful review of the record indicates no obvious prejudicial error. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Olson's motion failed to state a cognizable claim under rule 60.02. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 7.02 (requiring motions to "state with particularity" the grounds for the motion and the relief sought).
13. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Olson's motion for "fail[ing] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, resjudicata, or collateral estoppel.