Erik Anderson, et al., petitioners, Respondents,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0202

Erik Anderson, et al., petitioners,
Respondents,

vs.

David Robert Weber,
Appellant.

Filed November 13, 2017
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-CV-16-599

Patrick A. Doran, Miller & Stevens, P.A., Forest Lake, Minnesota (for respondents)

Daniel M. Gallatin, Gallatin Law, PLLC, Hugo, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
In this neighbor -harassment case, appellant David Weber challenges the district
court’s determination that spreading animal -carcass mulch along the property line and
placing barrels with profanity written on them facing the neighbor’s windows constituted
grounds for a harassment restraining order. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Carol Amundson owns a farm in rural Scandia, and appellant David Weber has lived
there since 2012. The farm has a variety of animals, and Weber helps Amundson with
farming operations. Respondents Erik and Sarah Anderson, with their two daughters,
moved from Mounds View to a property next to Amundson in 2012. The Andersons were
initially on good terms with Weber. The Andersons were not bothered by any smells from
the farm, and Weber was receptive to the idea of the Anderson children visiting the farm
to help with animals. But the relationship became rocky in the summer of 2016, when law
enforcement officers responded to a report of a cow carcass on Amundson’s property .
Officers discovered a rotting cow carcass and issued Weber a citation. The Andersons
were not responsible for the report, but Mr. Anderson believes it was because of this event
that Weber started to harass and target his family in various ways.
In August 2016, only a few days after the cow -carcass citation, the Anderson
daughters were playing on a trampoline. Ms. Anderson was inside when she heard several
gunshots. She ran outside and found her daughters crying and Weber about a hundred feet
away from her children. She had a hard time deciding whether to call the police because
she was fearful of repercussions, but she decided to alert them to the gunshots near her
children. Officers arrived, and while no arrests were made, the officers did walk around
the area. While walking the property line, officers noticed what appeared to be “mulched
up animal carcasses.” The m ulch was directly in front of the Anderson s’ property, and it
smelled garbage-like and was surrounded by flies. After this incident, an officer advised
the Andersons to file for a harassment restraining order (HRO).
3
A few days later , barrels with writi ng on them started appearing on Amundson’s
property. The barrels directly face d the Andersons’ property, outside of their living and
dining room windows, but were not within the view of the street or other neighbors. Some
of the barrels contain ed phrases including: F.U.; F.U. little man ; co-workers doing wife ;
and how’s life buddy . Other barrels did not include writing, while some had seemingly
harmless writings like H2O. The Andersons planted trees to block the sight of the barrels,
but more barrels appeared.
Apart from the barrels, chalkboard signs started to appear on Amundson’s property
near her driveway facing the street. The writing on the chalkboard signs changed often,
but included phrases such as: Now how’s life . Having fun? ; sore neck lookin g over
shoulder? Never know when. Hands up don’t shoot ; Game on; shoot first; who is next ;
and I want to eat you. The parties dispute whether these chalkboard signs were directed at
the Andersons.
After these events, the Andersons filed for an ex parte HRO, which was granted.
Weber requested a hearing, whic h took place in November 2016. Nine people testified,
including the parties, law enforcement, and neighbors. The Andersons testified there were
other forms of harassment besides the mulch, gunshot incident, barrels, and chalkboard
signs, including an incident where Weber yelled “F.U.” 1 while looking at the Andersons.
The parties dispute whether this yelling was directed at the Andersons. The Andersons
further stated that they believe d the barrels were directed toward them since no one else

1 It is unclear from the record whether Weber yelled the abbreviated or unabbr eviated
version of the phrase.
4
can see them. The Andersons do not like to let their children go outside because of Weber,
and they do not like them to be home alone. And they explained that they ar e afraid of
Weber and “feel fo r the safety of their children.” Since these events, the Andersons
installed alarm and video motion systems, and took self-defense classes. Additionally, the
Andersons testified that they walk one of their daughters to the s chool bus because she is
afraid of gun shots that occur around 7 a.m. They also take different driving routes with
the children to avoid looking at the chalkboard signs.
Weber testified that the chalkboard signs are not directed toward the Andersons, but
instead at the police, who have harassed him before. The chalkboard signs started after the
cow-carcass citation as a “stress relief thing,” and according to Weber, are a commentary
on news and political issues. Weber denied there was any carcass mulch and stated there
was only brewer’s grain. 2 Finally, Weber testified that he did not think he ever shot near
the Andersons’ property.
A law enforcement officer testified that he was concerned for the Anderson s
because of the “overall behavior on [Amundson’s] property seems to be directed towards
the Andersons.” And a neighbor described the barrels as “derogatory” and said the
Andersons’ concerns for safety for themselves a nd their children are “valid.” A different
neighbor testified that the chalkboard signs did not appear to be directed at anyone , and
that gunshots are common in the neighborhood.

2 Amundson and Weber receive spent grain from a brewery, and use that grain to both feed
their animals and to place it on compost piles to help red uce the odor. Amundson also
testified there is brewer’s grain that is spread out around the property, and that it is used to
keep compost piles on the farm from smelling.
5
After the hearing, the district court granted an amended 3 HRO effective for two
years. The court found both Ande rsons credible. In its order, the court found that Weber
spread mulch containing animal remains on the property line, shot his gun within 100 feet
of the Andersons’ children, placed barrels with obscene messages on them directly facing
the Andersons’ home, yelled “F.U.” to the Andersons, and fired his gun while the children
were getting on the school bus. The court found that these incidents caused the Andersons
to fear for th eir safety, security, and privacy. The order prevents Weber from coming
within ten feet of the Andersons’ property and directs him to remove the offensive barrels
and mulched substance. Weber appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Harassment is defined as “repeated in cidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words,
or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial
adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748,
subd. 1(a)(1) (2016). To constit ute harassment, the statute “requires both objectively
unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable
belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer , 708
N.W.2d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2006).
Weber argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting the HRO
because there was not sufficient evidence to (1) show that there were repeated incidents of
intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures; or to (2) show that his conduct had a

3 The original order stated Weber could not be within 500 yards of the Andersons’ property,
but this was later changed to ten feet.
6
substantial adverse effect , or was intended to have a substantial adverse effect , on the
safety, security, or privacy of the Andersons. An issuance of an HRO is reviewed for abuse
of discretion, but whether the facts found satisfy the elements required for an HRO presents
a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Peterson v. Johnson , 755 N.W.2d
758, 761 (Minn. App. 2008).
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that there were
repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures.

For an HRO to be granted, the Andersons must establish that there were repeated
incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts , words, or gestures by Weber. Minn. Stat.
§ 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). Here there is sufficient evidence to support the district court’s
findings that this requirement was met: Weber positioned barrels with negative writings on
them outside of the Andersons’ home and he spread mulch containing animal remains near
the property line. The side of the barrels with the writing were positioned to directly face
the Andersons’ windows. In addition, the timeline of events suggests a retaliatory motive.
The barrels appeared within a few days after law enforcement issued Weber a citation for
a rotting cow carcass on Amundson’s property. Considering only the barrels with negative
comments and the mulch containing animal remains , as well as the timeline of events, we
conclude there was sufficient evidence of repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts
for the district court to determine this was objectively unreasonable conduct.
Weber argues that the record does not support some of the conduct being attributed
to him, a nd that the district court’s findings of fact are not supported by the record. He
specifically contends the district court erred by determining he was the one who fired the
7
gun and by determining his yelling of “F.U.” was directed at the Andersons. But we need
not reach this issue because the conduct involving the barrels and mulch is sufficient on its
own to constitute repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts. Any findings about the
other conduct that could be erroneous would not warrant reversa l as there is still a
substantial basis for the HRO. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (stating any flawed findings of fact
warrants reversal only if the error affects a substantial right of a party).
Weber further argues that the record does not support the dist rict court’s decision
because his behavior is objectively reasonable and not threatening. More specifically, he
states that firing guns, writing on chalkboard signs, laying down mulch, and cursing are all
common behavior on agricultural property. Because the Andersons were new to living in
a rural area, they were unfamiliar with what living next to a farm entails, Weber contends.
But p lacing barrels with derogatory language on them facing a neighbor’s house and
spreading mulch containing animal remains on the property line is not commonplace in
rural areas. Weber provides no evidence to the contrary. Certainly none of the neighbors
at trial, two of whom testified in support of Weber, testified that barrels with derogatory
comments or animal -carcass mulc h spread along a property line were common in the
neighborhood. In fact, in denying any animal -carcass mulch was on the property,
Amundson explained that she would never do that because it would be “rude.”
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the
district court’s determination that there were repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted
acts.
8
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Weber’s
conduct had a substantial adverse effect or was intended to have a substantial
adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of the Andersons.

For an HRO to be granted, the Andersons must also establish that Weber’s conduct
caused, or was intended to cause, a substantial adverse ef fect on their safety, security or
privacy. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). There must be “an objectively reasonable
belief on the part of the person subject to harassing conduct.” Dunham, 708 N.W.2d at
567. Here there is sufficient evidence to su pport the district court’s findings that the
Andersons met this requirement . The Andersons testified that Weber created an unsafe
environment for them , and they are in “desperate fear of him, and the safety of [their]
family.” The record is replete with examples of the Andersons taking precautions due to
their fear: the y installed alarm systems and took self-defense classes . While these are
examples of subjec tive concern from the Andersons, there is sufficient evidence in the
record to support the determination that these concerns were objectively reasonable. A law
enforcement officer testified that he was very concerned for the safety of the Andersons in
light of Weber’s behavior , and a neighbor testified that he believed the Anders ons’
concerns for their safety were valid.
Weber argues that the Andersons did not show that some of the alleged harassing
conduct specifically caused any adverse effects. For example, he states the Andersons did
not explicitly state the writing on the barrels caused fear. This argument is unpersuasive.
First, it relies on attacking the Anderson s’ subjective concerns, while the standard is
objective. Second, while Weber is correct that the Andersons did not testify that each
specific incident caused fear, his argument is not supported by the record as a whole .
9
Ms. Anderson testified the barrels made her feel like Weber is targeting her family , and
more importantly, the Andersons testified that Weber’s conduct as a whole causes them to
fear for their safety. Weber does not point to any legal authority that shows that each
alleged incident must cause subjective concerns, as opposed to a cumulative effect.
Because the record sufficiently supports the finding of repeated unwanted acts with
substantial adverse effects in the di strict court’s detailed and thorough order, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in granting the HRO.
Affirmed.