In the Matter of: Susanne Natalie Luthens v. Brooks David Hansen

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1391

In the Matter of:

Susanne Natalie Luthens, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Brooks David Hansen,
Respondent.

Filed May 6, 2024
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Jesson, Judge *

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-DA-FA-21-2540

Amy Burroughs, Central Minnesota Legal Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Brooks David Hansen, Brownsberg, Indiana (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and

Jesson, Judge.

*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

JESSON, Judge

While the district court granted appellant Susanne Natalie Luthens’s motion to

extend an order for protection (OFP) against respondent Brooks David Hansen, it did so

only for two years. Luthens sought a 50-year extension, but the district court concluded

that it could not grant such an extension in a default proceeding. Nor did the district court’s

extension include a provision forbidding Hansen from possessing firearms. Luthens

appeals. Because no authority requires both parties to be present for the district court to

grant a 50-year OFP extension and the OFP extension order did not address the firearm

ownership prohibition set forth in Minnesota Statute § 518B.01 subd. 6(g) (2022), we

affirm in part the district court’s extension of the order for protection but reverse and

remand this matter in part for the district court to consider the appropriate duration for the

OFP and the requested provision forbidding Hansen from possessing firearms.

FACTS

Luthens filed a petition for an OFP against Hansen on May 19, 2021. In her petition,

Luthens averred that Hansen had sent her threatening text messages, pushed her against a

wall, held a gun to her head, and attempted to shoot her. Luthens did not request a provision

prohibiting Hansen from owning or possessing firearms in her initial petition nor did she

request a hearing. The district court 1 granted Luthens’s petition and issued an emergency

ex parte order for protection on May 20, 2021. The OFP was effective for two years, until

1
This matter appeared before a referee, as permitted under Minn. Stat. § 484.65 (2022).
The order on appeal was approved and signed by a district court judge.

2
May 20, 2023. Hansen was served with a copy of the OFP both personally and by mail.

Hansen did not request a hearing.

Nearly two years later, Luthens filed an application to extend the OFP. In her

attached affidavit, she asserted that Hansen “violated [the] OFP on several occasions” and

“engaged in acts of harassment/stalking.” She averred that Hansen, among other things,

asked her to “retract the protection order” and told her “I am also not able to buy a

handgun . . . you know I have plenty.” Luthens requested that the court extend the OFP for

up to 50 years and “[p]rohibit [Hansen] from shipping, transporting, possessing, or

receiving any firearms or ammunition.” The district court issued an ex parte, two-year

extension of the OFP on May 11, 2023. On May 15, 2023, the district court issued an

amended ex parte extension of the OFP, scheduling a hearing to address the additional

relief (the 50-year period and the firearm prohibition) requested by Luthens. Hansen

appeared at the subsequent hearing and requested a continuance to give him time to secure

counsel. The district court continued the hearing.

But Hansen did not appear at the continued hearing and the district court proceeded

to consider the matter by default. At the hearing, Luthens’s counsel raised Luthens’s

requests for a 50-year OFP and an order prohibiting Hansen from owning or possessing

firearms.

On May 31, 2023, following the hearing, district court issued an order extending the

OFP for two years to May 20, 2025. The district court stated in its May 31 order that

Luthens “asked the Court to grant her a 50-year Order for Protection against [Hansen],

however, the Court informed her that testimony from [Hansen] is [a] necessary procedural

3
component of that request, and that without [Hansen] present, the maximum extension the

Court could grant is two years.” The order neither contained nor otherwise addressed a

provision prohibiting Hansen from possessing firearms. Luthens now appeals. 2

DECISION

We review a district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.

Braend ex rel. Minor Child v. Braend, 721 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Minn. App. 2006). “A district

court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies

the law.” Id. at 927. Appellate courts “review the record in the light most favorable to the

district court’s findings and” only reverse those findings if “left with a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation omitted). But we review a district

court’s statutory interpretation de novo. Id.

Luthens argues that the district court misapplied the law in two ways. First, Luthens

contends that the district court erred by denying her motion to extend the OFP for 50 years.

Second, Luthens maintains that the district court erred by denying her motion to prohibit

Hansen from possessing firearms. We address each issue in turn.

I. The district court abused its discretion by refusing to address Luthens’s motion
to extend the order for protection for 50 years without Hansen present.

At the OFP hearing on Luthens’s motion to extend the OFP, the district court

indicated that it could not grant a 50-year OFP without a full evidentiary hearing where

2
Hansen did not file a brief in this matter, so this case proceeds under Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 142.03.

4
Hansen is present. It then proceeded to grant a two-year OFP extension. The refusal to

consider the 50-year extension was error, Luthens contends. We agree.

The record below establishes that (1) Hansen was personally served with the OFP

application for extension, (2) that application contained the alleged OFP violations,

(3) Hansen appeared at the first scheduled hearing, and (4) the district court granted Hansen

a continuance to seek counsel. As a result, Hansen was on notice of the relief requested

and provided with a meaningful opportunity to participate and contest the OFP application

extension.

These circumstances meet the statutory requirements set forth in the Domestic

Abuse Act (the Act), Minnesota Statute section 518B.01 (2022). The Act states that OFP

extensions do not require a hearing “[i]f the petitioner seeks only the relief under subsection

7 paragraph (a) . . . unless the court declines to order the requested relief or the respondent

requests a hearing.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(a). But here, given that two provisions

of relief sought by Luthens were not included in the previous OFP, the court held a hearing.

The Act does not define “hearing” and there is neither statutory language nor

caselaw stating that both parties must actually appear for the hearing for the court to award

appropriate relief. Nor does any statute or caselaw forbid imposition of a 50-year OFP

extension by default.

Although district courts have discretion to grant OFP relief, a district court abuses

its discretion when it misapplies the law. Braend, 721 N.W.2d at 927. Here, the district

court misapplied the law by imposing a procedural limitation to relief that does not exist

and refusing to consider the issue on its merits. Accordingly, the district court abused its

5
discretion. We therefore affirm the district court’s extension of the OFP generally but

reverse and remand this issue for the district court to determine the appropriate duration of

the extension. See In re Welfare of M.F., 473 N.W.2d 367, 370 (Minn. App. 1991)

(remanding for a district court to exercise its discretion when it erroneously ruled on a

discretionary issue as a matter of law); Jones v. Jarvinen, 814 N.W.2d 45, 48 (Minn. App.

2012) (applying M.F.).

II. The district court abused its discretion by denying Luthens’s motion for an
order prohibiting Hansen from possessing firearms.

Luthens argues that the district court erred in not including a term prohibiting

Hansen from possessing firearms in the May 31 extended OFP. As Luthens points out—

and the amended ex parte extension OFP states—she sought the firearms provision in her

extension petition.

Pursuant to the Act, following notice and a hearing, a district court must prohibit a

responding party from possessing firearms if the petition is proven by a preponderance of

the evidence and the order both restrains the abusing party from harassing behavior and

includes either a credible threat finding or a prohibition against the use of—or threat of—

physical force against the petitioner. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(g).

Minnesota Statute § 518B.01, subd. 6(g) states as follows:

[a]n order granting relief shall prohibit the abusing party from
possessing firearms for the length the order is in effect if the
order (1) restrains the abusing party from harassing, stalking,
or threatening the petitioner or restrains the abusing party from
engaging in other conduct that would place the petitioner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury, and (2) includes a finding that
the abusing party represents a credible threat to the physical
safety of the petitioner or prohibits the abusing party form

6
 using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force
against the petitioner. The order shall inform the abusing party
of that party’s prohibited status.

(Emphasis added). “Unless another intention clearly appears,” a statute’s use of the word

“shall” indicates that the act to be performed is mandatory. Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 1,

16 (2022); see Anoka Cnty. v. L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., 3 N.W.3d 586, 592 (Minn. 2024)

(citing Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2022)).

Here, both statutory requirements appear to have been met. The order on appeal here

extended the May 20, 2021, OFP. That underlying OFP (1) restrained Hanson from

engaging in conduct that would “reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury,” and

(2) prohibited Hansen from using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force

that would put Luthens in reasonable fear of bodily injury. Given that the OFP was

extended by the May 31, 2023, order after appropriate notice and a hearing, the district

court’s extension order should have addressed the requested firearms restriction and

included provisions satisfying the notification and transfer provisions of Minnesota

Statutes § 518B.01, subd. 6(g). 3 Accordingly, we reverse and remand this issue for the

district court to either (1) include a firearm restriction in the extension order or (2) explain

why it is not including a provision prohibiting Hansen from possessing firearms.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

3
Minnesota Statutes § 518B.01, subd. 6(g) also indicates that “[e]xcept as provided in
paragraph (i), the court shall order the abusing party to transfer any firearms that the person
possesses, within three business days, to a federally licensed firearms dealer, a law
enforcement agency, or a third party who may lawfully receive them.” Thus, if the statute
requires that a firearm prohibition provision be included, these provisions must be included
as well.

7