Combs v. Lund
2015 ND 10
N.D.2015Background
- Divorcing couple: Justin Combs and Lisa Combs; Lund dating Lisa Combs.
- Lund allegedly involved in physical incident with Combs’ child or children; testimony conflicting.
- Combs petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Lund; district court granted a temporary order and set a hearing.
- District court made oral findings and issued a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order that could be modified by the pending divorce.
- Lund challenges (1) lack of necessary factual findings and legal conclusions, (2) due process concerns re: modification in divorce proceedings to which Lund is not a party, (3) lack of personal jurisdiction and standing in the divorce proceedings, and (4) overall abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court made adequate findings under 12.1-31.2-01(5) and Rule 52(a). | Combs asserts inadequate findings. | Lund contends the court’s order did not need more or that findings were implicit. | Remanded for adequate, specific findings. |
| Whether permitting modification/review of the restraining order in the divorce proceeding violated due process. | Combs/Lund argue due process and potential lack of notice/hearing. | Lund argues modification in divorce is permissible. | Abuse of discretion; modification authority in divorce proceedings improper. |
| Whether Lund had standing/personal jurisdiction in the divorce proceedings to affect the restraining order. | Lund has no standing and was not party to divorce; lack of notice. | District court’s discretion to address orders in divorce proceedings. | Lund lacked standing and jurisdiction; due process violated. |
| Whether the district court’s oral order sufficiently described the conduct and basis for the restraining order. | Record lacked explicit findings tying acts to defined disorderly conduct. | Court’s discretion to grant temporary restraining order. | Insufficient findings; remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanisch v. Kroshus, 2013 ND 37 (ND 2013) (standard for reviewing disorderly conduct restraining orders; abuse of discretion standard)
- Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 2005 ND 190 (ND 2005) (due process requirements for restraining orders)
- Walbert v. Walbert, 1997 ND 164 (ND 1997) (notice and meaningful hearing supported by due process)
- In re Adoption of J.W.M., 532 N.W.2d 372 (ND 1995) (due process and procedural requirements in related context)
- Tibor v. Lund, 1999 ND 176 (ND 1999) (‘reasonable grounds’ equals probable cause for restraining orders)
- Wishnatsky v. Huey, 1997 ND 35 (ND 1997) (definition of ‘reasonable grounds’ for restraining order under ch. 12.1-31.2)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 2000 ND 170 (ND 2000) (standing of third parties in divorce proceedings; intervention concepts)