999 N.W.2d 618
N.D.2023Background
- Carey Mead sought a disorderly conduct restraining order (“DCRO”) against her next-door neighbor, Mark Hatzenbeller, alleging continued harassment and safety concerns.
- Hatzenbeller had previously pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct—harassment regarding the Meads, resulting in a criminal conviction and related no-contact conditions.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order and held an evidentiary hearing with both parties present and represented by counsel.
- At the hearing, Mead relied primarily on Hatzenbeller’s criminal conviction and petition allegations; Hatzenbeller challenged the specificity and sufficiency of the evidence.
- The court took judicial notice of the criminal conviction, found sufficient grounds for the order, and included Mead’s husband as a protected party in the one-year restraining order.
- Hatzenbeller appealed, raising issues about evidence sufficiency, recency of conduct, due process, and the inclusion of Mead's husband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for DCRO | Criminal conviction is sufficient basis | Allegations are vague; no specific new proof | Conviction provides adequate grounds for order |
| Recency/Imminency Requirement | Evidence and safety concerns justify order | Conduct is too far in the past for redress | Statute has no time limit; circumstances justified gap |
| Due Process/Full Hearing | Defendant was on notice, could rebut | Hearing was not full; only petition/conviction | Defendant had fair notice and opportunity to respond |
| Inclusion of Non-Petitioner (Husband) | Husband named as victim and requested protected | Not a petitioner, not present at hearing | Not preserved below, thus waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanisch v. Kroshus, 827 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for civil restraining orders is abuse of discretion)
- Rekow v. Durheim, 980 N.W.2d 917 (N.D. 2022) (allegations for restraining orders must be specific, not general)
- Meier v. Said, 726 N.W.2d 852 (N.D. 2007) (some logical limits on time and distance for restraining orders, but no set temporal rule)
- Hoggarth v. Kropp, 790 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 2010) (standards for criminal and civil disorderly conduct are equivalent for restraining orders)