Opinion
No. CX-98-1384.
Filed January 26, 1999.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 238311.
Mihai Miu, (respondent pro se)
Nicolae Miu, Sr., (appellant pro se)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Nicolae Miu, Sr., challenges the district court's order for protection (OFP), which prohibits him from having contact with his adult son, respondent Mihai Miu. Appellant claims that the district court did not consider the evidence he presented and abused its power in declining to follow the law. We affirm because we find no merit to these claims.
DECISION
Under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(a)(1), (2) (1996), "domestic abuse" is defined as "physical harm, bodily injury, or assault" or "the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault." See Kass v. Kass , 355 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn.App. 1984) (interpreting statutory term "domestic abuse" as requiring "either a showing of present harm, or an intention on the part of appellant to do present harm"). The record reveals the following evidentiary support for the district court's determination that the OFP should issue: (1) respondent and his twin brother identified numerous instances of physical abuse by appellant; (2) respondent testified that appellant threatened him many times and in one instance stated that appellant had brought respondent into the world and could take him out of it; (3) respondent testified that appellant spied on him, including lurking outside his home; and (4) respondent testified that he was "really afraid of this man."
Appellant claims that the district court ignored the evidence he presented. The record shows, however, that while the district court heard the evidence appellant presented, including that the "KGB" has a plot aimed "to get him" through his son, the court was persuaded by respondent's contrary testimony.
An appellate court
accord[s] great deference to a trial court's findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it.
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. , 552 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1996) (citation omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the OFP. See Mechtel v. Mechtel , 528 N.W.2d 916, 920 (Minn.App. 1995) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a) (1994) (court "may provide relief")).
Additionally, appellant provides no legal support for his assertions on appeal. An appellate brief "shall" contain an argument that includes an analysis of issues and "the citations to the authorities." Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 128.02; see State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn.App. 1997) (requirement of raising issue in appellate brief not met without discussion, analysis, or citation of authorities). Appellant's failure to provide any legal support for his claims provides an independent basis for affirming the district court. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith Sons Carpet Co. , 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971) (assignment of error based on "mere assertion" and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless error is obvious).
Appellant further argues the district court abused its power in deciding this case. Contrary to appellant's claims, the district court and the referee allowed appellant to offer evidence, although both attempted to limit the evidence to issues of fact related to the OFP. Further, appellant failed to object to any alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings or make any offers of proof regarding claimed erroneously excluded evidence. See Minn.R.Evid. 103(a) (requiring objection and offer of proof before challenge to evidentiary ruling excluding evidence). Finally, some of the conditions of the OFP to which appellant objects are required or supported by the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6. Under these circumstances, the district court's actions were proper and did not amount to an abuse of power.