Lindstaedt v. George, 952 N.W.2d 102

Lindstaedt and George dated ~4 years, lived together, and have a child in common.
Lindstaedt petitioned for a domestic violence protection order alleging George choked her, punched her, threatened to kill her, and forced sex.
After a hearing the district court found George committed domestic violence and issued a two-year no-contact protection order.
On the record the court summarized Lindstaedt’s testimony (choking/threats, hitting, nonconsensual sex) and noted corroborating context (she was packing to leave); the written findings were brief and referenced the record.
George presented a witness whose testimony conflicted with Lindstaedt’s account as to timing; he argued the court erred in crediting Lindstaedt and that written findings were insufficient.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the evidence supported findings of recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex and that the district court’s credibility determinations and reliance on on-the-record findings were not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of findings under Rule 52 and statute	On-record findings and court statements provide sufficient factual basis	Written findings lack specificity and fail to address contradictory testimony	On-record findings and reasons suffice; written order need not repeat full record; affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence to show "actual or imminent" domestic violence by preponderance	Lindstaedt’s testimony established recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex	Contradictory witness testimony undermines claims and timing	Record contains sufficient evidence for recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex; protection order upheld
Credibility determination	Lindstaedt’s testimony was credible and the court correctly relied on it	Court erred egregiously in crediting Lindstaedt over George and his witness	Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings and will not reweigh; no clear error

Ficklin v. Ficklin, 710 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 2006) (domestic violence findings are factual and reviewed for clear error)
Lovcik v. Ellingson, 569 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1997) (party must prove actual or imminent domestic violence by a preponderance; past abuse is a relevant but not dispositive factor)
Hanneman v. Nygaard, 784 N.W.2d 117 (N.D. 2010) (trial court must make findings of fact sufficient to enable appellate review)
Cass County State's Attorney v. R.A.S. (In re R.A.S.), 756 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 2008) (deference to trial court on credibility when evidence conflicts)
Clarke v. Taylor, 934 N.W.2d 414 (N.D. 2019) (detailed oral findings can obviate repetition in written order)
Odden v. Rath, 730 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 2007) (deference given to factfinder’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
Buzick v. Buzick, 542 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1996) (will not reverse when reasonable minds could differ on weight of conflicting evidence)
Swanson v. Swanson, 921 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 2019) (appellate court will not reverse simply because it might view evidence differently)
Rebel v. Rebel, 833 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2013) (reiteration that appellate court does not reweigh credibility)