This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. ' 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C5-96-252

Sunny Buckley-Wallace, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Ronald Patrick Kresien,
Appellant.

Filed July 9, 1996
Affirmed
Schumacher, Judge

Cass County District Court
File No. F895979

Sunny Buckley-Wallace, Post Office Box 211, Cass Lake, MN 56633 (Respondent Pro Se)

Ronald S. Cayko, Legal Aid Service of Northeastern Minnesota, Westport Shopping Center, 1300 Highway 210 West, Suite 116, Brainerd, MN 56425 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Short, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SCHUMACHER, Judge

Ronald Patrick Kresien appeals from the district court's order for protection, arguing the order should be reversed because he was not given proper notice of the hearing. We affirm.

FACTS

Sunny Buckley-Wallace sought an order for protection against Kresien, alleging acts of domestic abuse and requesting the return of items of personal property. On October 13, 1995, the district court granted Buckley-Wallace an ex parte order for protection and set an evidentiary hearing for October 19, 1995. Kresien was personally served with notice for the hearing on October 16, 1995.

At the hearing on October 19, 1995, Buckley-Wallace and Kresien appeared pro se. The district court denied Kresien's motion to have an advocate present upon learning the advocate was not an attorney. After the hearing, the district court granted Buckley-Wallace the order for protection and ordered Kresien to return certain personal property. Kresien appeals.

D E C I S I O N

For the first time on appeal, Kresien argues that he was not given the required five-day notice of the hearing. See Minn. Stat. ' 518B.01, subd. 5(a) (Supp. 1995) ("[p]ersonal service shall be made upon the respondent not less than five days prior to the hearing"). Kresien appeared at the hearing, and he concedes that he did not assert any lack of notice. He argues that because he appeared at the hearing pro se he should not be expected to know of his rights under the statute. Pro se litigants, however, are held to the same standard as attorneys. Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For's Beach, 399 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Minn. App. 1987). Because Kresien failed to raise the issue of lack of notice at the hearing, he has waived it. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (appellate court will review only those issues first raised in district court).

Affirmed.