This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute over a domestic violence order of protection. The Respondent sought to modify or reconsider an order of protection initially stipulated on August 5, 2025, which he had agreed to. The Respondent later challenged the district court's jurisdiction to enter the order, arguing that his stipulation to being a stepparent was impermissible.
Procedural History
- District Court, August 5, 2025: An order of protection was issued, which the Respondent stipulated to.
- District Court, December 15, 2025: The district court resolved the Respondent's objections to a domestic violence special commissioner's order denying his motion to modify or reconsider the order of protection.
Parties' Submissions
- Respondent: Argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order of protection because his stipulation to being a stepparent amounted to an impermissible stipulation to subject matter jurisdiction (para 3).
- Petitioner: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Respondent's stipulation to the order of protection precluded his right to appeal.
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order of protection.
Disposition
- The appeal was affirmed, upholding the district court's decision (para 4).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Hanisee and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The court found that the Respondent had stipulated to the August 5, 2025 order of protection, thereby losing his right to appeal any issues related to that order (para 2). The Respondent also failed to file a notice of appeal or motion to reconsider within the required thirty days, making the issues not appropriately before the court (para 2). The court addressed the Respondent's assertion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, clarifying that the stipulation was to a factual condition relevant to the statute's applicability, not to jurisdiction (para 3). The Respondent did not adequately address the proposed conclusions, leading to the affirmation of the calendar notice (para 3).