This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).






In the matter of:

Barbara L. Schable, petitioner,





Paul Robert Boyle,




Filed April 18, 2000


Amundson, Judge


Ramsey County District Court

File No. F899661


William E. Haugh, Jr., Collins, Buckley, Sauntry, & Haugh, W-1100 First National Bank Building, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)


Joan H. Lucas, 700 St. Paul Building, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for appellant)



            Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Foley, Judge. *

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N




                Ex-husband contends the district court erred when it granted his ex-wife an order for protection, contending that the district did not find that he had a present intent to cause her physical harm or fear of physical harm.  We affirm.


            The marriage of appellant Paul Boyle and respondent Barbara Schable was dissolved by judgment entered on January 25, 1999.  On March 17, 1999, respondent Barbara Schable filed a petition for an order for protection alleging instances of abuse by Boyle occurring between December 31, 1998, and March 15, 1999.  

            Schable testified that on December 31, 1998, Boyle grabbed her wrist and prevented her from getting into her residence.  When Boyle allowed her to go in, Schable placed a phone call.  While she was on the phone, Boyle hung the phone up, grabbed Schable from behind and threw her up against a wall.  Boyle refused to leave the house and ripped the phone from the wall and threw it across the room.  The parties’ daughter went next door to call 911 and Boyle left.   Schable also testified that Boyle threatened her on several occasions in February 1999.  On one of these occasions, Boyle demanded that Schable open her front door, and then, when she refused, broke the window of the door with a hockey stick.    During another instance in March 1999, Boyle kicked the car door of the vehicle Schable was seated in while yelling at her.  The district court granted Schable a temporary ex parte order for protection on March 17, 1999.  On May 10, 1999, following a contested hearing, the district court granted Schable’s request for a one-year order for protection.  This appeal followed. 


            On appeal from an order of protection, we will affirm unless we conclude the district court abused its discretion.   See Mechtel v. Mechtel, 528 N.W.2d 916, 920 (Minn. App. 1995).  Furthermore, we will not set aside the district court's findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, unless they are clearly erroneous.  Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.

            A district court may issue an order for protection upon a showing of domestic abuse.   Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4(b) (1998).  Upon notice to all parties, the district court may extend the relief in an existing order of protection or, if an initial order is no longer in effect, the court may grant a subsequent order for protection upon a showing that “the petitioner is reasonably in fear of physical harm from the respondent.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a (2) (1998). 

Here, the district court found that acts of domestic abuse had occurred and that Schable was reasonably in fear of physical harm from Boyle.  The district court specifically found that

[o]n or about 12/31/98 [respondent] grabbed [petitioner] by her wrist and wouldn't let go, threw [petitioner] against wall causing [petitioner] to be afraid.


Boyle argues that to satisfy the statute’s requirement that there be a showing that Schable was reasonably in fear of physical harm from him, the district court must find that he had a present intention to inflict fear of physical harm on Schable.   Boyle argues that the December 31, 1998, incident was too remote in time in relation to Schable’s request for an order for protection to evidence a present intent on his part to inflict fear of physical harm in Schable.  Boyle also contends that the district court’s lack of a particularized finding on the matter warrants reversal.  Conversely, Schable argues that there need not be an affirmative finding by the district court that Boyle possessed a present intent to inflict fear of physical harm on her, but merely that the record established such a fact.

The district court’s order specifically states that its findings of fact are “[b]ased on the Affidavit and Petition for an Order For Protection and all of the records and proceedings in [this] matter.”  Additionally, the order states that that "[a]cts of domestic abuse have occurred, including the following" (emphasis added) which is immediately followed by the district court’s detailing of a particular act of abuse occurring on December 31, 1998.  Thus, the district court did not, as Boyle argues, base the issuance of its order solely on the December 31, 1998, incident. We may consult the entire record to complete any interstices. We conclude that the record is replete with instances of verbal and physical threats by Boyle which occurred as recently as two days before Schable petitioned for an ex parte order for protection and which placed her in reasonable fear of physical harm.  Accordingly, we affirm.





* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.