Legacie-Lowe v. Lowe, 990 N.W.2d 592

In Sept. 2022 Lori Legacie-Lowe petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against Jerome Lowe, alleging verbal abuse, throwing a chainsaw near her, throwing objects, and extreme anger.
Lori testified she fears Jerome, now carries a handgun, installed security cameras, and has sleeplessness due to fear.
The district court granted a 12-month protection order prohibiting Jerome from contacting Lori.
Jerome appealed, arguing Lori failed to prove actual or imminent domestic violence and that the court made inadequate factual findings.
The district court’s oral ruling said it was satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that fear of imminent physical harm was inflicted; the only written finding noted repeated verbal abuse since July 2022.
The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and determined the district court’s findings were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner proved actual or imminent domestic violence to support a protection order	Legacie-Lowe: past verbal abuse, threatening acts (chainsaw thrown near her), and ongoing fear show actual or imminent threat	Lowe: no evidence of physical harm or imminent threat; fear is speculative	Court: Remanded — district court’s factual findings were too conclusory to decide; must make specific findings on imminence/fear
Whether the district court made sufficient findings of fact under Rule 52(a) to allow appellate review	Legacie-Lowe: oral and limited written findings were adequate to show fear of imminent harm	Lowe: findings were conclusory and lacked factual detail to support imminent-fear conclusion	Court: Held findings inadequate; remanded for specific factual findings explaining basis for concluding fear was actual or imminent

Frisk v. Frisk, 703 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 2005) (standard that domestic-violence finding is factual and reviewed for clear error)
Lovcik v. Ellingson, 569 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1997) (burden to prove actual or imminent domestic violence by preponderance; past abuse relevant)
Ficklin v. Ficklin, 710 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 2006) (context and history relevant; necessity of showing actual or imminent domestic violence)
Steckler v. Steckler, 492 N.W.2d 76 (N.D. 1992) (definitions of "imminent" and "actual")
Lawrence v. Delkamp, 620 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 2000) (legal questions about statutory interpretation fully reviewable)
Matter of Kulink, 920 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2018) (Rule 52(a) requires findings sufficient to enable appellate understanding)
Clarke v. Taylor, 934 N.W.2d 414 (N.D. 2019) (findings must be specific enough to assist appellate review)