Holm v. Holm, 998 N.W.2d 806

Heidi Holm filed for a disorderly conduct restraining order during a marital separation, alleging attempted sexual coercion, theft of funds, possession of weapons, and fear of Joshua Holm.
The court issued a temporary restraining order and set a short hearing with an unusual procedure requiring evidence by affidavit unless a party requested a full evidentiary hearing; neither party requested a full hearing.
Heidi notified intent to cross-examine and called Joshua at the hearing; Heidi did not testify or present other evidence.
Joshua admitted he entered the marital home’s garage once without a sheriff present even though they had agreed he would be accompanied when retrieving property; he said he went to get tools and fuel for work and had texted the sheriff.
The district court found that Joshua’s unaccompanied appearance after the agreement constituted disorderly conduct, entered a six-month no-contact restraining order, and Joshua appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Holm)	Defendant's Argument (Holm)	Held
Whether petitioner proved disorderly conduct (requires intent to adversely affect safety, security, or privacy)	Heidi relied on petition allegations (forced sex, theft) and Joshua’s admission he entered after being asked not to return to support reasonable grounds.	Joshua argued there was no evidence he intended to adversely affect Heidi’s safety, security, or privacy; admission of presence alone is insufficient.	Reversed: petitioner failed to prove adverse intent; court abused discretion by issuing order without findings of intent.
Whether district court made adequate findings under Rule 52(a) / precedent requiring specificity	Heidi argued the record supported the court’s conclusion.	Joshua argued findings were conclusory and did not explain how conduct affected safety, security, or privacy.	Reversed: findings were inadequate—court did not explain how conduct affected Heidi or show intent.
Whether the court’s hearing procedure violated due process	Heidi defended the hearing procedure as applied.	Joshua asserted the scheduling/affidavit procedure shifted burden and denied full hearing.	Not reached on merits: Court avoided constitutional question because order reversed on evidentiary/intent grounds.

Cusey v. Nagel, 695 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2005) (petitioner must allege specific facts or threats; vague generalities insufficient)
Rekow v. Durheim, 980 N.W.2d 917 (N.D. 2022) (district court must make specific findings tying conduct to petitioner’s safety, security, or privacy and show respondent’s intent)
Baker v. Mayer, 680 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2004) (reasonable grounds for a restraining order is synonymous with probable cause)
Combs v. Lund, 858 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard and Rule 52(a) specificity requirement apply to disorderly conduct restraining orders)
Svedberg v. Stamness, 525 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1994) (standard for reasonable grounds/probable cause in protective order context)
Sollin v. Klein, 958 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2021) (petition allegations are inadmissible hearsay if not supported by admissible evidence)