Angela Mary Frame, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1489

Angela Mary Frame, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Joseph Battles,
Appellant.

Filed July 23, 2018
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-17-3000

Angela Mary Frame, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Joseph Battles, South St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
LARKIN, Judge
On appeal from the district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO) ,
appellant argues that the HRO was not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.

2
FACTS
On June 15, 2017, the district court granted respondent Angela Mary Frame an ex
parte temporary HRO against appellant Joseph Battles. On June 27, 2017, Battles
contested Frame’s petition for an HRO at a three-day evidentiary hearing. The district court
heard testimony from Frame, Battles, Nicholas Battles (Battles’s son), and Deborah Frame
(Frame’s mother).
Frame testified that after she ended a relationship with Battles in May of 2017 ,
Battles contacted her up to ten times per day by text, Facebook, and phone. Frame testified
that she blocked Battles’s phone messages on May 30, and Battles went to her mother’s
apartment that night. Frame testified she was on the phone with her mother and could hear
Battles banging on her mother’s door and screaming profanity. Frame testified that the
police were called to her mother’s apartment to deal with Battles and that Battles contacted
her that evening.
Frame also testified that she met with Battles in early J une to return some of his
possessions. She testified that he returned the items to her house later that night and would
not accept that she wanted to end their relationship. Frame testified that Battles continued
to call her excessively from the end of M ay through June 15, when she petitioned for an
HRO.
Battles testified that his contact with Frame was mutual. He testified that he went
to Deborah Frame’s apartment on May 30 and that she invited him and his daughters inside.
Battles further testified that Deborah Frame never asked him to leave, but that after he left,
his son returned to ask for a cigarette, so he followed his son back to the apartment door.

3
Battles testified that his son knocked multiple times because there was music playing
inside. Battles testified that his son returned to the car, but he waited another minute to see
if Deborah Frame would answer the door, only to be confronted by the police, who told
him he was not welcome there.
Nicholas Battles testified that Deborah Frame invited him into her apartment along
with his father and two of his sisters. He also testified that after they left, Battles returned
to ask whether his house keys were in the apartment. Nicholas Battles testified that there
was no yelling or aggressive behavior and that the police questioned them without incident.
Deborah Frame testified that Battles arrived at her apartment between 7:30 and 8:00
p.m. on May 30 and asked where Frame was and how to get in touch with her. She testified
that Battles’s daughter needed to use the bathroom, so she let Battles stand just inside the
door while his daughter used the bathroom. She further testified that she tried to give
Battles the key to his truck and a bag of his clothes, but that he would not take them unless
Frame was present. Deborah Frame testified that she asked Battles to leave multiple times
over the course of 45 minutes and that Battles refused to do so. Lastly, she testified that
after Battles finally left, he returned and knocked on her door for 15 minutes, at which
point she called the police.
The district court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Battles
harassed Frame by making uninvited visits to Deborah Frame’s apartment twice on
May 30, by refusing to leave when first requested, and by questioning Deborah Frame
regarding Frame’s whereabouts. The district court further found that Battles harassed
Frame when he refused to take his possessions from Deborah Frame in order to have a

4
reason to contact Frame. The district court found that the harassment “has or is intended
to have a substantial adverse effect on [Frame’s] safety, security, or privacy” and granted
Frame an HRO against Battles. Battles appeals.1
D E C I S I O N
Battles contends that he “was unjustly found guilty of harassment with no evidence
to support the judgment.”2 An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a n HRO
for an abuse of discretion. Kush v. Mathison , 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004) ,
review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004). A district court’s findings of fact will not be set
aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to
judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 843-44. “The determination of what constitutes
an adequate factual basis for a harassment order is left to the discretion o f the district
courts.” Id. at 846. But this court will reverse the issuance of an HRO if it is not supported
by sufficient evidence. Id. at 844.
Harassment includes “repeated incidents 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, regardless of the relationship between
the actor and the intended target.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)( 1) (2016). A court
may grant an HRO when “the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds

1 Because Frame did not file a brief, this court ordered the appeal to proceed under Minn.
R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (providing that if a respondent fails to file a brief, the case shall be
determined on the merits).
2 We note that the finding of harassment was not a criminal finding.

5
to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
5(b)(3) (Supp. 2017).
Battles argues that the district court’s decision was not supported by sufficient
evidence. We disagree. Deborah Frame’s testimony supports the HRO, as the district court
reasoned:
[U]p until the rebuttal testimony of [Deborah Frame,] I was
prepared to not issue a harassment restraining order because it
was my belief based upon all the testimony that this was a
relationship gone bad, that both parties for whatever reasons
were having difficulty ending it. . . . But when [Deborah]
Frame testified regarding the incident at her home and the offer
of returning clothing to Mr. Battles and keys, an issue that he
has been persistent about being his main and sole focus in
trying to have contact since the first day I started hearing this
case on June 27, I’m concluding that Mr. Battles’ testimony is
not real credible.

Battles challenges the district court’s finding that his presence at Deborah Frame’s
apartment was uninvited, arguing that Frame and her mother told him to go there to get his
house key. Even if Batt les initially believe d he was invited to the apartment, the record
indicates that he was asked to leave , refused to do so , and returned, uninvited, after
departing. Deborah Frame’s testimony adequately supports the district court’s finding that
Battles’s presence at her apartment was uninvited.
Battles argues that Frame and her mother lied during their testimony and that the
district court erred by crediting their testimony and not his. This argument is unavailing.
An appellate court generally defers to a fact-finder’s assessment of witness credibility. See
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (“[D]ue regard shall be given to the opportunity of the [district]
court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”) . When reviewing an order for protection

6
(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.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App.
2009) (quotation omitted). “And w e neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide
issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder. ” Id.
(quotation omitted). These principles of appellate review are no less applicable w hen
reviewing an HRO. We therefore defer to the district court’s express determination that
Battles’s testimony was not credible.
In conclusion, we note that t he district court’s comments in support of its decision
to issue an HRO could suggest that the decision was a close call. But in such
circumstances, it is appropriate to adhere to the deferential standard that applies when
reviewing a district court’s discretionary decision whether to issue an HRO , especially
when the district court has had the opportunity to hear and observe the parties ’ testimony
regarding the need for an HRO at a contested evidentiary hearing . See id. at 99-100
(applying deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review to affirm district court’s
decision to issue an OFP, whic h was a “close call” given conflicting testimony and
evidence of witness bias). Under that standard, we cannot conclude that the district court
abused its discretion by issuing an HRO. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.