Opinion
A24-0004
08-15-2024
Jolene Susan Foss, Respondent, v. Tanna Marie Warren, Appellant.
Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CV-23-8245
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Florey, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Kevin G. Ross, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent Jolene Foss petitioned the district court for a harassment restraining order against appellant Tanna Warren in October 2023. Foss claimed that Warren would repeatedly drive past her home, threaten her, and had damaged her property.
2. The district court denied Foss's petition for an ex parte harassment restraining order but held a hearing on Foss's petition for a harassment restraining order. Both Foss and Warren appeared at the hearing, and the district court granted Foss's petition. The order prohibits Warren from being within 500 feet of Foss's home until November 2025.
3. The appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record on appeal. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn.App. 1995). Warren did not order a transcript of the hearing on the harassment restraining order. The documents available for our review in the record are Foss's petition and the district court's order.
4. We review a district court's grant of a harassment restraining order for an abuse of discretion. Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn.App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004). To do so, the record must include enough information "to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary for consideration of the questions presented." Truesdale v. Friedman, 127 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn. 1964).
5. Warren challenges the reliability of the evidence supporting the district court's findings, arguing that Foss made false claims about Warren contacting her family and employer, repeatedly driving past her house, and destroying property. The district court did not state that it found reasonable grounds to believe Foss's claims about Warren destroying property or contacting Foss's family or employer in its findings of fact. We therefore will address Warren's only available argument, which is that Foss did not offer evidence to support the allegations that the district court did find reasonable grounds to believe, specifically, that Warren drove past Foss's house repeatedly.
6. We defer to a district court's findings of fact unless the finding is clearly erroneous. Kush, 683 N.W.2d at 843-44. Because Warren did not order a transcript, we cannot review the evidence presented at the hearing to determine whether the district court clearly erred in its findings of fact. We offer no opinion as to whether the finding that
Warren repeatedly drove by Foss's home meets the statutory definition of harassment, as the question has not been presented here.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order granting the harassment restraining 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, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.