This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed October 4, 2005
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C9-04-100932
Considered and decided by Dietzen, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Pro se appellant Monique Treptow challenges a December 13, 2004 harassment restraining order that prohibits her from harassing, contacting, assaulting, or damaging the property of respondent Belinda Johnson. Appellant argues that the order contradicts her version of the facts, is based upon incomplete evidence, and is otherwise unsupported by the evidence. Because we find no error in the district court’s admission of evidence and because the evidence supports the findings and conclusions upon which the order is based, we affirm.
Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a referee, to the extent adopted by the court, shall be considered as the findings of the court.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not prejudicially err in issuing the harassment restraining order. Appellant’s brief and supporting documents contain mere assertions that are unsupported by law or, in most instances, by the evidence offered at the hearing. The evidence in the record, including the testimony of respondent and two other witnesses, supports a conclusion that appellant’s conduct amounted to harassment of respondent under Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (2004). That testimony shows that appellant repeatedly contacted respondent by making threatening phone calls and stopping by her house. On one occasion, appellant improperly induced police to arrest respondent for violating a prior restraining order. While appellant admits to most of the contacts, she disagrees about their impact on respondent. We conclude that the district court properly characterized these contacts as harassment and determined that appellant’s conduct amounted to harassment as defined by the statute.
Finally, we note
that there is no support for appellant’s claim that evidence was improperly
excluded from the record. The hearing
transcript does not show that appellant either attempted to offer evidence that
was rejected by the referee or objected to evidence that was excluded by the
referee. Under these circumstances, we
decline to consider whether evidence was improperly excluded by the
referee. See In re Welfare of M.P.Y., 630 N.W.2d 411, 415 (