Click Here For The Best Wright Divorce Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Wright Divorce Lawyer Directory

Description:

Wright, Minnesota divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution case involving harassment.

The parties dissolved their marriage, by stipulated findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment and decree in October 2017. Relevant to the arguments presented by husband in this matter, the parties "expressly waived any and all liability, claims, and obligations of any kind against the other party, whether arising in contract, status, tort or otherwise," and they agreed to be "barred from bringing any actions relating to such liability, claims, or obligations."

In May 2023, respondent Michelle Lynn Wilson (wife) filed a petition for a HRO. Wife alleged that husband made uninvited visits to her home, had frightened her with threatening behavior at appointments for their children, and harassed her over social media. Wife described being afraid when husband yelled at her and noted that husband previously would yell before physically abusing her. Wife believed the harassment would continue because their relationship consisted of a history of abuse.

The district court declined to issue an ex parte HRO and, instead, scheduled a hearing on wife's petition. Husband wrote a letter to request that the court refer the HRO matter to the family court judge who handled the parties' divorce. The district court rejected the request and retained the HRO matter.

At the hearing in August 2023, wife testified that during their marriage husband hit her, pushed her to the floor, threatened to kill her in front of their children, bit her nose, and kicked her while she was pregnant. Wife stated the abuse made her afraid of husband.

Wife testified about multiple occasions since the divorce when husband yelled at her. Wife described a May 2023 incident when husband yelled at her at a counseling appointment for their child. Wife testified that this event was similar to past incidents from their marriage when husband would yell at her and "then it ended up being violent." Wife testified that she felt scared and unsafe at the appointment.

Wife testified about a February 2023 event when she notified a counselor that their children had seen feces in the bathroom of husband's home. After husband learned about the disclosure, husband "got mad and said that [wife] was making that up." Wife testified that husband's reaction was like instances during their marriage when husband would become angry and then physically abuse her. Wife felt scared by husband's reaction.

Wife provided another example of husband yelling during a virtual medical appointment. Even though she was not in husband's physical presence, wife testified that she felt anxious, her heart started racing, and she began crying.

Wife further testified about another doctor visit when husband yelled at her regarding their child's diagnosis. The doctor asked husband to step out of the room due to his yelling. Wife testified that this incident made her feel scared.

Wife also detailed other instances of husband yelling at her in public. In addition, she detailed other instances of husband's harassment, such as unwanted text messages, uninvited visits to her home, and harassing messages over social media.

Husband testified at the hearing, claiming wife accused him of child abuse at an appointment and screamed at him. Husband asserted that wife's "character assassination" testimony stemmed from her not liking the results from the divorce proceedings.

On cross-examination, husband admitted that he responded to wife in a "loud voice" during one medical appointment, but he "did not consider it yelling." Husband denied yelling at other appointments. Husband denied biting wife's nose and hitting her during their marriage, but he could not recall if he said he would kill wife. Husband admitted that at times during the marriage he yelled and acted inappropriately, but he believed it was unreasonable, in his opinion, for wife to be afraid of him.

Following the hearing, the district court granted the HRO. The district court found wife to be credible and afforded her testimony "great weight." In contrast, the district court found husband's testimony, "particularly regarding past domestic abuse allegations, was not credible." The court found husband's answers to be "evasive and/or non-responsive." The district court also found that there were "reasonable grounds to believe that [husband] has engaged in harassment which has or is intended to have a substantial adverse effect on safety, security, or privacy of [wife]." The court also found that husband threatened to kill wife and "yelled at [her] during therapy and/or doctor appointments in front of one of the parties' children and others." The court concluded that husband's "recent conduct in light of the past abuse demonstrates how [husband's] more recent behavior was intended to frighten and intimidate [wife]."

After the district court issued the HRO, husband moved for amended findings and to vacate the order. Husband asserted that only the judge that oversaw the dissolution proceedings had jurisdiction over the parties, which precluded a different judge from ruling on the HRO petition. Husband also argued that the district court's findings of fact did not meet the statutory standard for issuing a HRO. Husband further claimed that wife violated the stipulated decree from their divorce by presenting allegations "arising prior to the 2017 decree in her petition and testimony."

The district court held a second hearing in October 2023 to address husband's motion. The court noted that the HRO proceeding was "an independent proceeding from the family court file" that raised "separate issues" and, as such, the court determined it could issue the HRO "even though there is a family court file." Following the hearing, the district court issued an amended HRO that provided clarity regarding certain restrictions related to the children's medical care and attendance at appointments but did not otherwise substantively alter the original order.
Wilson v. Wilson, A23-1799 (Minn. App. Aug 12, 2024)

Outcome: The district court acted within its discretion in rejecting husband's request to reassign the HRO matter to the judge that oversaw the divorce proceedings. The district court also did not clearly err in its credibility findings or err in considering conduct from the parties' marriage to inform its decision on whether to grant the equitable relief of a HRO based upon post-divorce conduct. Because the record supports the district court's findings of fact, and because those findings of fact support the district court's grant of the HRO, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the HRO.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: