Rekow v. Durheim, 980 N.W.2d 917

Rekow and Durheim had a long‑running dispute originating in 2015 over unpaid gravel; tensions persisted into 2022.
On January 12, 2022, Durheim went to Rekow’s property to collect the debt; an argument and reciprocal yelling occurred after Rekow asked her to leave several times.
Rekow admitted swearing at Durheim and described being harassed; he testified he felt threatened only by the prospect of a lawsuit, not by physical violence, and gave no specific testimony about effects on his safety, security, or privacy.
Rekow filed a disorderly conduct restraining order on January 18, 2022; the district court held a hearing February 22, 2022 and granted a one‑year order, finding Durheim’s refusal to leave and yelling were "intrusive, unwanted" acts affecting privacy and security.
The district court’s on‑the‑record findings did not address Durheim’s intent or explain how her conduct adversely affected Rekow’s safety, security, or privacy; Durheim appealed.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion because the findings were conclusory and failed to satisfy statutory and Rule 52(a) specificity requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reasonable grounds existed to issue a disorderly conduct restraining order	Rekow: Durheim came onto his property, refused to leave immediately, yelled and harassed him — these intrusive/unwanted acts justify the order	Durheim: Record lacks specific facts showing intent or that her acts were intended to affect Rekow’s safety, security, or privacy; petitioner did not show how he was affected	Reversed — district court abused its discretion; petitioner failed to show required specific facts that conduct was intended to affect safety/security/privacy
Whether the district court complied with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) by making sufficient factual findings	Rekow: Bench findings (durational refusal to leave; yelling on his property) satisfy the requirement	Durheim: Findings were conclusory and did not specially find intent or how protected interests were affected, so Rule 52(a) was not satisfied	Reversed — court’s findings were not specific enough to permit appellate review or meet Rule 52(a) requirements

Combs v. Lund, 858 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review for restraining orders and Rule 52(a) findings requirement)
Cusey v. Nagel, 695 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2005) (petitioner must allege specific facts showing intent to affect safety, security, or privacy; subjective fear insufficient)
Mitzel v. Larson, 890 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2017) (conclusory statements by petitioner and court are insufficient to support disorderly conduct order)
Rothberg v. Rothberg, 711 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 2006) (under Rule 52(a), court must find facts specially to enable appellate review)
G&D Enterprises v. Liebelt, 949 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 2020) (discussion distinguishing trespass from other intrusive conduct)
Williams v. Spilovoy, 536 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 1995) (conclusory testimony like "he harassed me" is insufficient)