In the Matter of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0975

In the Matter of:

Sharon Rene Sagan Lewis,
Respondent,

vs.

Craig Robert Lewis,
Appellant.

Filed April 10, 2023
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Fillmore County District Court
File No. 23-FA-18-317

Sharon Rene Sagan Lewis, Canton, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

James McGeeney, Doda McGeeney, Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s extension of an order for protection (OFP),
arguing that the district court abused its discretion because the record does not support a
finding that respondent reasonably feared him. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In early May 2018, respondent Sharon Lewis (sister) petitioned for an OFP against
appellant Craig Lewis (brother). Her supporting affidavit averred that brother physically
assaulted and scared her in late April 2018. On that occasion, brother came to her home
and used a tractor to “smash[] things” and to prevent her from leaving in her vehicle. Sister
was afraid he would hit or run her over with the tractor. Br other then “jumped off” the
tractor and approached sister while screaming at her. He proceeded to punch her in the
arm and head, “body slam[]” her to the ground, and kick her ankle. When sister got up and
walked toward her house, brother followed her with his “chest puffed out” and his “hands
clenched in fists” before leaving. Sister called the police and sought medical care. Sister
further alleged a history of abuse at brother’s hand, noting that in October 2017 he came to
her home and “intimidate[d]” her “by chest bumping[,] getting close with clenched fists[,]
and destroying property.” She believed the violence would continue because “he has
continually become more violent when angry.”
The district court granted the OFP ex parte. The OFP was effective for two years
and prohibited brother from committing “acts of domestic abuse” and from going to sister’s
house or having contact with her except during “family events.” Brother did not timely
request a hearing to contest the OFP.
In May 2020, shortly before the OFP was set to expire, sister applied for a two-year
extension. Her application stated that she was still “reasonably in fear of physical harm”
from brother and alleged that he had engaged in several “acts of harassment or stalking.”
Brother timely requested a hearing, during which the parties and their mother testified. The
3
district court made no findings as to whether brother had engaged in further acts of abuse,
harassment, or stalking. But it found that sister remained in “reasonable fear of physical
harm from [brother]” and granted the extension.
In May 2022, sister applied for another OFP extension. She averred that she was
still “reasonably in fear of physical harm” from brother and that brother had “engaged in
acts of harassment or stalking.” She expressed fear that brother would try to hurt her “as
revenge for causing him to have a criminal record (Disorderly Conduct August 2018
conviction), losing possession of his firearms (May 2018) and because [the] Court granted
[her] request for Dismissal of [brother’s] civil case (January 2022).” And she recounted
numerous acts by brother, including reporting her to law enforcement and committing theft
and vandalism at her property. The application concluded with sister’s statement that
despite her fear that brother would physically harm her, she would “take whatever legal
means necessary to reduce the chances of him being able to ever hurt [her]: physically,
mentally, sexually or financially again.” The district court granted an ex parte extension
for a period of one year.
Brother timely requested a hearing, during which sister testified about the incidents
that led her to originally seek an OFP and to seek extensions. She stated that the facts she
alleged in her original OFP petition were true and she described a “life-long history” of
intimidating and violent behavior by brother. Sister testified that she was still afraid of
brother. On cross-examination, sister acknowledged that brother has not entered her
property or directly contacted her since the OFP was granted. The district court found that
4
sister reasonably feared that brother would harm her and granted a two-year extension of
the OFP on that basis.
Brother appeals.1
DECISION
The Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act (the Act) permits a district court to extend an
existing OFP if:
(1) the respondent has violated a prior or existing order
for protection;
(2) the petitioner is reasonably in fear of physical harm
from the respondent;
(3) the respondent has engaged in the act of harassment
within the meaning of section 609.749, subdivision 2; or
(4) the respondent is incarcerated and about to be
released, or has recently been released from incarceration.

Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b)(1)-(4) (2022). The Act does not require a petitioner to
show that the respondent harmed them or that physical harm is imminent to obtain an OFP
extension. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b); see also Ekman v. Miller, 812 N.W.2d 892,
895 (Minn. App. 2012) (recognizing that petitioner need not show actual or imminent
physical harm to extend an existing OFP).
We review a district court’s decision to grant relief under the Act for an abuse of
discretion. McIntosh v. McIntosh, 740 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. App. 2007). “A district court
abuses its discretion if its [factual] findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies
the law.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation

1 Sister did not file a brief, but we consider the appeal on its merits pursuant to Minn. R.
Civ. App. P. 142.03.
5
omitted). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. Ekman, 812 N.W.2d
at 895. In doing so, w e do not weigh or reweigh evidence, as that is the province of the
district court. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 223 (Minn. 2021); see
Butler v. Jakes, 977 N.W.2d 867, 871-72 (Minn. App. 2022) (applying Kenney in an OFP
appeal).
Brother argues that the district court abused its discretion by extending the OFP
because sister’s allegations alone were not sufficient evidence to establish that she was
reasonably in fear of brother. And he argues that granting the OFP extension does not
further the purpose of the Act because sister “presented no credible evidence” that brother
presents a “credible threat” of physical harm to sister. Neither argument persuades us to
reverse.
First, the record supports the district court’s finding that sister reasonably feared
brother would harm her. The original OFP was based in part on the fear and physical harm
brother caused sister in 2018, which resulted in his conviction for disorderly conduct.
Brother does not contest this. To support her extension request, sister submitted an
affidavit and testified that she still feared brother. Brother cites no authority for his
contention that his compliance with the 2018 and 2020 OFPs precludes a finding that sister
continued to fear him at the time of the 2022 extension hearing. And we are not persuaded
by his suggestion that the district court erred by relieving sister of her burden to produce
evidence of her reasonable fear. The record does not reflect such an error. The district
court did not state that sister need not present any evidence. Rather, it explained that the
fact brother had not violated the OFP did not render sister’s fear of physical harm
6
unreasonable. And the district court further explained that it relied on the record and on
sister’s testimony that she remains in reasonable fear of physical harm from brother,
rejecting brother’s argument that sister’s fear was unreasonable. We can neither reweigh
the evidence nor second-guess the district court’s implicit credibility determinations. Id.
Second, the Act does not require additional or recent acts of domestic abuse to
extend an existing OFP. While evidence of such acts could support an extension, the Act
provides that evidence of current reasonable fear of harm is, in and of itself, sufficient to
extend an OFP. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(b)(2). We are not persuaded otherwise
by brother’s citation to two foreign authorities that require additional threats or acts to have
occurred since the original protective order was issued. In contrast, the Act expressly
provides four alternative bases for extending an OFP, only two of which turn on a
respondent’s conduct since the OFP was issued. Brother concedes that he cannot find any
Minnesota authority to support his argument. That is precisely because the Act clearly
states otherwise. See Thompson v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 499 (Minn. 2018) (noting
that “when the Legislature wanted to impose a temporal requirement [for obtaining relief
under the Act], it knew how to do so” and refusing to read such a requirement into the Act
where the legislature did not expressly impose one).
Because the Act, by its terms, does not condition extension of an OFP on a showing
of recent acts of abuse and the record supports the district court’s findings that sister
reasonably feared physical harm from brother, we affirm.
Affirmed.