Cited by

An OFP issued under the second definition of domestic abuse—infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily 10 injury, or assault—“is justified if a person manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on the person’s spouse.”

This court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness 10 credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).

(observing that, in issuing an OFP, the district court implicitly found one party to be more credible than another).

14, 2023); cf. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (deferring to the district court’s implicit credibility determination).

Rather, appellate courts “review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’ s findings” and “reverse those findings only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

29, 2004) ; - 100 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering implicit credibility findings on appeal from a district court’s grant of an order for protection) .

And, in its order denying amended findings, the district court acknowledged that credibility was at the center of its finding that domestic abuse had not occurred and declined to revisit that finding after it “thoroughly reviewed the record in the matter in light of [Bahl]’s motion.” We defer to the district court’s implicit credibility determinations, and, thus, the district court’s finding that domestic abuse had not been shown is not clearly erroneous.

(noting that appellate courts defer to the district court’s explicit and implicit credibility determinations).

(determining that the district court made implicit credibility findings in the context of an order for protection); Dunham, d at 567 (concluding the HRO statute requires objectively unreasonable conduct).

the case “on the merits.” 5 Here, the district court did not err in determining that Robert’s acts constituted “domestic abuse.” “[I]n our review of an OFP, we review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will reverse those findings only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).

16, 2013); (holding that “district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d] that [it] found .

“A district court abuses its discretion if its [factual] findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation 1 Sister did not file a brief, but we consider the appeal on its merits pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.

(“Conflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court.”); (noting that “[t]he district court’s findings implicitly indicate that the district court found respondent’s testimony credible” and stating that “[w]e defer to this credibility determination”).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, 9 misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted); (“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation omitted)).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quoting Braend ex rel.

(explaining that appellate courts neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 7 (deferring to a district court’s implicit credibility determinations and factual findings); WL 3097721, at *2 (Minn. App. June 25, 2018) (explaining that the district court “implicitly rejected Hockenson’s proffered reasons” for wanting to possess a firea

(indicating that findings of fact can be implicit); Vettleson v. Special Sch.

(“The district court’s findings implicitly indicate that the district court found respondent’s testimony credible.

( noting that the district court ’s credibility findings can be implicit) .

(applying the abuse-of-discretion standard in the context of OFP decisions).

(noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).

We review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and reverse those findings only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

I. Challenge to the Findings of Fact We review the factual findings in support of an OFP for clear error, reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the findings, and we “will reverse those findings only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its [factual] findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted)

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (“The district court’s findings implicitly indicate that the district court found respondent’s testimony credible.

Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (indicating that fact findings may be implicit).

(on conflicting testimony, observing that the district court’s OFP findings “implicitly indicat[ed]” that it found certain evidence credible).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (considering implicit credibility findings on appeal from district court’s grant of an order for protection).

5 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible); Knapp v. Knapp , (stating that “[appellate courts] defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits”).

(credibility determinations); (implicit credibility determinations).

An “overt physical act” is not required and intention to do present or imminent harm may “be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including a history of past abusive behavior.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik

(quotations and citations omitted); see In re Civil Commitment of Kenney , -23 (Minn. 2021) (addressing clear-error standard of review).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the reco rd or if it misappli es the law.” (quotation omitted).

See, e.g. , Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (noting that “[t]he district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).

This definition does not require an “overt physi cal act” and may “be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including a history of past abusive behavior.”

d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering implicit credibility findings on appeal from the district court’s grant of an order for protection).