Repp v. Van Someren
2015 SD 53
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Repp sought a stalking protection order against Van Someren in May 2014; the circuit court issued a five-year protection order after a July 2, 2014 hearing.
- The parties had a two-year unstable relationship with multiple breakups; the final breakup occurred May 1, 2014.
- Repp testified to escalating conduct by Van Someren, including unannounced entry into her apartment, password access to accounts, and physical confrontations.
- Van Someren contested the incidents; the court heard conflicting testimony and found stalking by Van Someren as to SDCL 22-19A-1.
- Repp submitted written findings of fact after the hearing, but they were eight days late; the court relied on oral findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The Court remanded for proper, timely written findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the protection order; it did not resolve the merits of the findings on the record as written.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the findings of fact clearly erroneous? | Repp (as plaintiff) contends the court’s oral findings inadequately support stalking under SDCL 22-19A-1. | Van Someren argues the court’s findings were sufficient or the issue not clearly erroneous. | Remanded for proper, detailed findings of fact. |
| Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in granting the protection order? | Repp asserts the court properly found stalking and acted within discretion. | Van Someren contends the evidence does not support stalking and abuse of discretion occurred. | Remanded; court did not complete a proper abuse-of-discretion analysis due to missing findings. |
| Was the exclusion of the text-message binder erroneous? | Repp argues the text messages illustrate a pattern supporting stalking. | Van Someren contends the binder is voluminous and not clearly probative. | Issue not decided on the merits; remand directs proper findings, thereby mooting final evidentiary ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shroyer v. Fanning, 2010 S.D. 22, 780 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2010) (establishes standard of review for protection orders)
- Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91, 668 N.W.2d 108 (S.D. 2003) (requires clearly entered findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- March v. Thursby, 2011 S.D. 73, 806 N.W.2d 239 (S.D. 2011) (remands for missing findings of fact in protection-order cases)
- Judstra v. Donelan, 2006 S.D. 32, 712 N.W.2d 866 (S.D. 2006) (remand when trial court failed to enter adequate findings)
- Donat v. Johnson, 2015 S.D. 16, 862 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (emphasizes requirement for meaningful written findings)
- White v. Bain, 2008 S.D. 52, 752 N.W.2d 203 (S.D. 2008) (standard for reviewing protective orders)