Amanda Stokes-Ciochetto, Paul Brian Ciochetto and o/b/o Minor Children v. Devin James Eskeli
A16-1211
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Devin Eskeli (18) and A.S. (17) had a prior romantic relationship; A.S.’s parents opposed it and told Eskeli he was not allowed in the house.
- On April 4, 2016, Eskeli entered the family home through a basement window, hid in A.S.’s closet, and was discovered by A.S.’s stepfather; police cited Eskeli for trespass.
- After the trespass, Eskeli sent A.S. messages (including suicide threats) from an alias; A.S. continued some communication to try to prevent his self-harm.
- The family obtained a temporary ex parte harassment restraining order and, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a harassment restraining order citing the single trespass incident.
- Eskeli moved for judgment as a matter of law at trial arguing the evidence was insufficient; the district court denied the motion and ruled a single trespass justified the order.
- On appeal the court reversed and remanded, holding the statute does not authorize a harassment order based on a single trespass absent physical or sexual assault; remand required fact-finding on whether repeated unwanted acts produced a substantial adverse effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a harassment restraining order may be issued based on a single trespass | Family: single trespass plus context warranted order | Eskeli: statute requires physical/sexual assault for single-incident order; trespass insufficient | Reversed: single trespass insufficient absent assault |
| Whether alternative theory of repeated intrusive acts supports the order | Family: multiple incidents (trespass + messages) had substantial adverse effect | Eskeli: district court decided only single-incident; appellate review barred without notice of related appeal | Remanded: district court did not rule on repeated-incident theory; must decide and make findings on remand |
| Whether appellees needed to file a notice of related appeal to raise the alternative theory on appeal | Family: no notice needed because repeated-incidents theory was presented below but not decided | Eskeli: notice required to raise new adverse issues on appeal | Held for family: notice not required where argument was presented to but not ruled on by the district court |
| Whether appellate court may itself find repeated incidents met harassment standard | Family: asks affirmance based on record incidents | Eskeli: opposes new factual findings on appeal | Held: appellate court cannot do fact-finding; district court must make factual determinations on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Peterson v. Johnson, 755 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (single-incident harassment requires physical or sexual assault involving inflicted or attempted bodily harm)
- Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347, 781 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2010) (no notice of related appeal required for issues presented below but not ruled on)
- Arndt v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 394 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. 1986) (limitations on appellate issues without notice of related appeal)
- Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima, 372 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1985) (appellate court does not engage in trial fact-finding)
- Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (harassment standard requires objective and reasonable grounds; courts must find substantial adverse effect)