March v. Thursby
806 N.W.2d 239
S.D.2011Background
- March filed a Petition and Affidavit for Protection Order in SD for protection from Thursby on Nov 18, 2010.
- The circuit court granted the protection order after an evidentiary hearing held Dec 17, 2010.
- March testified she was 16–17 in July 2009 when Thursby allegedly engaged in threatening conduct; she sought protection for fear of great bodily injury.
- Thursby disputed March’s version; he testified she drank beer and he told her to sleep, with different context.
- The order list included stalking findings but did not align with March’s testimony, and the court did not provide written, specific findings.
- The court later reversed the protection order due to insufficiency of the findings of fact on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order was voidable because March was a minor when she signed the petition | March’s protection sought under stalking statute overrides minor-status irregularities | Minor status requiring guardian/ad litem; irregularity could void proceedings | Order reversed for insufficient findings, not voidable on minor status |
| Whether the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over Thursby | Thursby submitted to SD court’s jurisdiction by participating | Lack of service and out-of-state residency challenge jurisdiction | Waived lack of personal jurisdiction; record shows waived challenge |
| Whether the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition | SD circuit court has authority to issue protection orders | Illinois-resident Thursby challenges subject matter reach | Court had subject matter jurisdiction; protection orders permissible in SD courts |
| Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient to support the order | March’s version supported by testimony; order should be sustained | Findings failed to specify how evidence met statutory elements of stalking | Findings insufficient; reversal of protection order warranted |
| Whether the order’s scope and findings complied with statutory requirements | Order aligned with stalking statutes and protections | Pre-printed form with misaligned findings; overbroad or improper entries | Insufficient specificity; reversal necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Beermann v. Beermann, 1997 S.D. 11, 559 N.W.2d 868 (1997 S.D.) (minors: protection may override procedural irregularities)
- Shroyer v. Fanning, 2010 S.D. 22, 780 N.W.2d 467 (2010 S.D.) (reversal for lack of sufficient findings of fact in protection order case)
- Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91, 668 N.W.2d 108 (2003 S.D.) (requires detailed findings tying evidence to elements)
- Olsen v. Steele, 51 S.D. 505, 215 N.W. 531 (1927 S.D.) (early rule on guardians/ad litem and procedural irregularities)
- Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103, 615 N.W.2d 613 (2000 S.D.) (protection orders; notice and procedure considerations)
- Beermann v. Beermann, 1997 S.D. 11, 559 N.W.2d 868 (1997 S.D.) (balance between minor’s protection and procedural form)
- Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 2007 S.D. 17, 729 N.W.2d 335 (2007 S.D.) (subject matter jurisdiction and general jurisdiction principles)