This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-272

 

Monique Treptow,

petitioner,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Belinda Johnson,

Respondent.

 

Filed October 4, 2005

Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge

 

Ramsey County District Court

File No. C9-04-100932

 

Monique Suesett Treptow, 773 North Howell Street, St. Paul, MN  55104 (pro se appellant)

 

Belinda Ann Johnson, 881 Burr Street, St. Paul, MN  55101 (pro se respondent)

 

            Considered and decided by Dietzen, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

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. 

D E C I S I O N

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.

 

Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.  An appellate court will reverse a district court’s factual findings only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”  In re Guardianship of Dawson, 502 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. App. 1993) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 1993).  “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”  Hentges v. Minn. Bd. of Water & Soil Res., 638 N.W.2d 441, 446-47 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 2002). 

            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 (Minn. 2001) (party who fails to make offer of proof showing nature of excluded evidence fails to preserve evidentiary issue for appeal).     

Affirmed.