Aaron Olson, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1820

Aaron Olson,
Appellant,

vs.

Cortney Nichole Mathis,
Respondent.

Filed August 26, 2019
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-18-5058

Aaron Olson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Cortney Nichole Mathis, Shakopee, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Cl eary, Chief Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
After the district court adopted the referee’s recommendation denying appellant
Aaron Olson’s petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO), Olson requested review
by a district court judge. The district court dismissed the no tice of review, finding that
Olson failed to serve respondent C ortney Nichole Mathis and spe c i f y t h e g r o u n d s f o r

2
review. Now on appeal, Olson ar gues that the district court erred by denying the petition
for an HRO and dismissing the notice of review. We affirm.
FACTS
In March 2018, Olson filed a petition for an HRO against Mathis. The district court
denied his request for an ex parte HRO, but granted a hearing. The sheriff’s office was
unable to serve Mathis because she had moved, and Olson requested that she be served by
publication. The district court granted the request. Mathis d id not appear at the hearing,
but the referee found that the facts alleged in the petition di d not constitute a basis for an
HRO and recommended that the district court dismiss the case. The district court initially
adopted the recommendation. Olson, however, filed a notice of review by a district court
judge under Minn. Stat. § 484.70 (2018), and the reviewing district court remanded to the
referee after finding that the r eferee did not allow Olson to p resent any evidence at the
hearing.
Olson testified at a second hearing, but he did not convince the referee that an HRO
was necessary. The referee found that Olson was not a credible witness and that
corroborating evidence was lacki ng. The referee also found tha t Olson’s testimony
regarding the alleged harassing incidents was vague and concluded that Olson did not carry
his burden of showing that Mathi s committed acts of harassment. The district court
adopted the recommended findings and order.1

1 The referee’s recommended findin gs and order became the distri ct court’s findings and
order when the district court judge adopted the order. Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(c).

3
Olson filed a notice of review by a district court judge. He listed the paragraphs of
the referee’s findings that he disputed, but claimed that he co uld not provide greater
specificity until he had a copy of the hearing transcript. Soon after the matter was assigned,
the district court ordered Olson to file proof that he had serv ed Mathis with the notice of
review. The district court also ordered him to file an amended notice of review specifying
the grounds for review. It warned that failure to comply with either of these orders would
result in dismissal of the notice of review.
In response, Olson filed an amended notice of review, claiming that he was seeking
review for “the referee’s abuse of discretion and clear error of fact.” (Emphasis omitted).
He added that the referee mischaracterized his testimony and that the transcript would show
the mischaracterizations. He also stated that he had done everything in his power to serve
Mathis but she was evading service. Olson argued that because he served the petition by
publication and the district cour t did not require that he serv e Mathis for his first review,
he should not have to serve Mathis for the second review. The district court dismissed the
notice of review, finding that Olson’s amended notice contained no additional clarification
and that Olson did not serve Mathis with the notice of review. It reasoned that, under Minn.
Stat. § 484.70, Olson was not excused from the service requirement simply because Mathis
was served the initial petition by publication. Olson appeals, arguing that the district court
erred in dismissing the notice of review and denying the HRO petition.
D E C I S I O N
A party may request that a judge review a referee’s recommended order under Minn.
Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(d). In or der to obtain review, a party must serve and file notice

4
within ten days of effective notice of the recommended order. Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd.
7(d). “When periods for servi ng and filing notices of appeal o r review are specified in
statute or rule, courts will construe those provisions strictly .” Sanders v. Boughton, 404
N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn. App. 1987). Failure to both serve and f ile the notice of review
within the time provided by the statute deprives the district court of jurisdiction to review
the referee’s order. See id. (citing Blixt v. Civil Serv. Bd. , 210 N.W.2d 230, 231 (Minn.
1973)), (concluding that the distr ict court lacked jurisdiction t o m o d i f y a c h i l d - s u p p o r t
order issued by a referee when the challenger failed to file an d serve notice of review as
required by statute). “Jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.” In re
Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).
The district court did not err in dismissing the notice of revi ew. It is uncontested
that Olson failed to serve Mathis, and he does not argue that t he statute does not require
service. He instead asserts that there is an exception to the general rule requiring service
when the respondent has been ser ved by publication, the respond ent has failed to appear,
and respondent’s whereabouts are unknown. It appears that Olso n believes he should be
excused from serving Mathis because of the unlikelihood that service would be successful.
He fails, however, to cite to any authority that creates such a n exception. Because Olson
did not serve Mathis, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the referee’s order.
Next, Olson challenges the district court’s decision dismissing the petition because
he failed to demonstrate that Mathis engaged in harassment. Before a court grants an HRO,
it must find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in
harassment. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(b)(3) (2018). We r eview a district court’s

5
decision on whether to grant an H RO for an abuse of discretion. Kush v. Mathison, 683
N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004).
Here, Olson presented his testim ony and a police incident repor t as evidence that
Mathis was harassing him. The district court found that Olson was not a credible witness,
explaining that his testimony was vague and that he had difficu lty answering the court’s
questions. The district court c oncluded that Olson’s claims could not be accepted as true
without corroborating evidence. This court defers to the distr ict court’s credibility
determination. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). And, as the district
court found, Olson failed to present any corroborating evidence. The only document Olson
introduced at the hearing was a police incident report. But th is report only shows that
Olson reported to the police that he thought Mathis broke into his house. It does not contain
any other details regarding this alleged incident or any evidence that Mathis actually broke
into Olson’s home. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the HRO.
Affirmed.