This opinion will be unpublished and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
In re the Matter of:
Sharon Mae Morrissette, f/k/a
Sharon Mae Mrutu, petitioner,
Stephen Aminiel Mrutu,
Hennepin County District Court
File No. DA 291016
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Randall, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On appeal from the district court’s grant of an extension of an OFP, pro se appellant-husband argues that the record does not support the district court’s findings that he threatened respondent-wife and violated the OFP. We affirm.
Appellant Stephen Mrutu and respondent Sharon Morrissette were married in October 2002, and divorced in October 2004. While the divorce action was pending, respondent applied for and obtained an order for protection (OFP) against appellant. Respondent subsequently moved to amend the OFP, on two separate occasions. Each motion was granted by the district court.
On August 25, 2005, respondent filed a motion asserting
that appellant violated the OFP and requesting an extension of the existing
order. Appellant opposed the motion and
a trial was held on the matter. At
trial, respondent testified that on August 25, 2005, at about 1:00 in the
afternoon, appellant confronted her at the
Appellant testified that he did not confront respondent
On September 12, 2005, the district court issued its order finding that appellant violated the August 30, 2004 OFP. The district court also granted respondent’s request to extend the OFP until August 30, 2006. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
court has discretion to issue an OFP. Chosa v. Tagliente, 693
N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn. App. 2005). “A district
court’s findings of fact will not be
set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.”
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he
violated the existing OFP and that the district court should have denied
respondent’s request to extend the OFP.
We disagree. At trial, respondent
testified that appellant telephoned her on numerous occasions and threatened to
kill her. Respondent also testified that
on August 25, 2005, appellant confronted her at the
Appellant testified at trial and denied the allegations. Appellant also presented evidence that he was at work on August 25, 2005, at the time that respondent claimed he threatened her at the government center. Although this evidence supports appellant’s claim, the district court questioned appellant concerning the possibility that he could have left work during his shift. Appellant refuted the hypothetical, claiming that there are nurses at his place of employment who supervise him and would have noticed if he left the facility. The district court did not find appellant’s testimony to be that credible. See Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating that appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations). Besides the August 25, 2005 incident, respondent testified that appellant telephoned her on numerous occasions threatening to kill her. If accepted, this testimony is sufficient to support the district court’s findings that appellant violated the OFP. The district court found respondent’s testimony to be credible. See id.
The record supports the district court’s findings that appellant violated the OFP and to extend the OFP until August 30, 2006.