Kruger v. Kruger, 2021 MT 168N

Nena and Dale Kruger married in 2005; they separated by 2008, attempted a 2011 reconciliation in Montana, and finalized a divorce in April 2018.
Nena filed three petitions for a temporary order of protection (TOP) in April 2018: the first (District Court) was denied as vague; the second (Justice Court) was denied with a procedural note to file in District Court; the third (District Court, April 24) was granted as a TOP prohibiting Dale from contacting Nena and their minor daughter.
A hearing to consider making the TOP permanent was set for May 2018 but proceeded in multiple sessions over about six months, with witnesses including a tenant (Robert Smith), the parties’ adult son (Karl), and both parties.
Evidence presented included photographs, witness testimony about threats Dale allegedly made (mostly to the tenant), allegations that Nena encouraged false statements, and admissions by Dale that he had lied to Nena about unrelated matters.
In September 2020 the District Court vacated the TOP, finding Nena was not in need of permanent protection; Nena appealed, arguing the court misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on the Justice Court denial, and gave undue weight to Dale’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kruger)	Defendant's Argument (Dale)	Held
Whether the District Court erred by relying on the Justice Court denial of the Second Petition	The District Court misstated or relied on the Justice Court denial (which was procedural, not on the merits) to discredit Nena’s petitions	The Justice Court did deny the second filing; District Court referenced it only to note new allegations and proceeded to evaluate the Third Petition on the merits	Court held District Court’s references were accurate and not outcome-determinative; no error
Whether the court improperly discounted threats Dale allegedly made because they were not acted upon	Nena argued the alleged threats warranted continued protection regardless of whether carried out	Dale and witnesses characterized threats as vents made to a tenant and not serious; no criminal charges or acts followed the statements	Court found testimony supported District Court’s conclusion that threats were not carried out and did not show continued danger; no clear error
Whether the court erred in finding Dale credible despite his admitted lie to Nena	Nena argued Dale’s admitted lie undermined his overall credibility and the court should discount his testimony	Dale admitted an unrelated lie under oath but the record contained substantial other evidence supporting his credibility	Court held the District Court permissibly weighed credibility and did not abuse its discretion in crediting Dale

Boushie v. Windsor, 328 P.3d 631 (Mont. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of orders of protection)
In re Marriage of Olson, 194 P.3d 619 (Mont. 2008) (standard for reviewing factual findings as clearly erroneous)
In re Marriage of Tummarello, 270 P.3d 28 (Mont. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Lear v. Jamrogowicz, 303 P.3d 790 (Mont. 2013) (purpose and statutory framework for orders of protection)