IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: MARLA JO LARSON, k/n/a MARLA JO NEUMILLER, Petitioner and Appellee, and AARON ALEXANDER LARSON, Respondent and Appellant.
Submitted on Briefs: November 14, 2018
District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and
For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 02-1157 Honorable
Rod Souza, Presiding Judge
Appellant: Aaron Alexander Larson, self-represented, Warden,
Appellee: Marla Jo Wagner, self-represented, Laurel, Montana.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum
opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as
precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition
shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of
noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Aaron Larson (Aaron) appeals from the May 9, 2018 Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Respondent's
Motion to Lift Restraining Order (May 2018 Order) of the
Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. We affirm.
Aaron and Marla were previously married and then divorced.
Aaron is the subject of a Permanent Order of Protection
entered March 24, 2006, that prevents any contact with Marla.
Aaron moved the court to lift this restraining order.
Following hearing on October 19, 2017, the District Court
entered its May 2018 Order denying Aaron's Motion to Lift
Restraining Order. Aaron appeals.
The Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure require the
appellant to present a concise, cohesive argument which
"contains the contentions of the appellant with respect
to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with
citations to the authorities, statutes, and pages of the
record relied on." In re McMahon, 2002 MT 198,
¶ 6, 311 Mont. 175, 53 P.3d 1266 (quoting M. R. App. P.
12(1)(g), formerly M. R. App. P. 23(a)(4)). This Court will
not consider unsupported issues or arguments. In re
Custody of Krause, 2001 MT 37, ¶ 32, 304 Mont. 202,
19 P.3d 811. Furthermore, it is not this Court's
obligation to research a party's position or to develop
legal analysis to support it. State v. Hicks, 2006
MT 71, ¶ 22, 331 Mont. 471, 133 P.3d 206.
In his Opening Brief, Aaron generally asserts he desires to
have the restraining order lifted as, "Removing this
would be [a] career and health benefit." Aaron does not
assert any error on the part of the District Court, does not
cite or mention any legal authority, and does not make any
reference to the record. Aaron has failed to present us with
any cogent or articulable argument upon which we could find
fault with the District Court's ruling.
Notwithstanding Aaron's failure to present an argument
and the general inadvisability of a permanent order of
protection,  we have reviewed the District Court's
May 2018 Order and find no reversible error.
We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I,
Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which
provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law
or by the clear application of applicable standards of
concur: JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, LAURIE McKINNON, DIRK ...