Appeal: A25-1655
Plaintiff: Kellye Strickland
Defendant: Madeline S. M. Lee
Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
Originating Court: Ramsey County District Court
Overview
Read the origin story of the conflict here
This appeal arises from the issuance of a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) entered on December 12, 2024 in Ramsey County District Court without the countersignature of a district judge.
No evidentiary or merits hearing was ever held on the petition. The order was never properly served on Appellant and was later found to exist in multiple digitally altered versions within the court record. Appellant was denied notice, a meaningful hearing, and requested ADA accommodations, and was prevented from accessing a neutral forum to challenge the order or prosecute ongoing stalking conduct.
Despite the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued multiple orders containing factual assertions contradicted by the Register of Actions, including statements that the petitioner had not been granted a fee waiver when the record reflects otherwise, and that Appellant had been served in November despite the absence of valid service.
During efforts to seek appellate review, the district court withheld a $550 money order tendered by Appellant for the initial appeal and did not transmit it, resulting in Appellant being required to pay the appellate filing fee a second time in order to perfect the appeal.
After repeated efforts to correct the record, obtain service clarification, and secure a hearing were obstructed at the district court level, Appellant sought appellate review.
Procedural History
On August 19, 2025, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking appellate intervention after the district court denied relief without issuing a valid, signed order.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reviewed the submission and determined that the issues raised were properly addressed through a direct appeal rather than mandamus relief. The matter was redirected into standard appellate procedure and docketed on October 7, 2025 as Case No. A25-1655.
The Court of Appeals issued a Notice of Case Filing and subsequent procedural orders addressing filing deficiencies, extensions of time, and fee-waiver mechanics. None of these orders dismissed the appeal or reached the merits of Appellant's claims.
November - December 2025 Procedural Sequence
On November 6, 2025, the Court of Appeals granted an extension related to the appellate filing fee.
On November 7, 2025, the district court denied Appellant's fee waiver extension, citing household income figures despite Appellant's status as permanently and totally disabled, receipt of SSDI, and the fact that both parties had previously been granted fee waivers in the underlying case.
On November 10, 2025, Respondent's counsel filed a contempt motion in district court seeking enforcement and arrest. That same day, Appellant paid the appellate filing fee, thereby perfecting the appeal, and later received the district court's fee waiver denial.
On November 13, 2025, the district court purportedly issued a hearing notice, which was not mailed until November 18, 2025. When mailed, the notice contained clerical irregularities, including duplicate copies and disclosure of protected address information.
On November 19, 2025, the Court of Appeals issued a sua sponte order granting additional time and directing Appellant to proceed by informal brief with a supporting addendum.
On November 23, 2025, Appellant received notice of a November 25 district court hearing. On November 24, 2025, Appellant filed the informal brief and addendum with the Court of Appeals in compliance with the directive and filed an emergency continuance request in district court.
Appellant did not appear at the November 25 hearing. That same day, the district court mailed a new hearing notice setting a December 29 hearing.
On December 1, 2025, the district court transmitted the Register of Actions and appellate record to the Court of Appeals and to Appellant.
Pre-Briefing and Reply
Pursuant to the Minnesota Court of Appeals' November 19, 2025 order, Appellant filed an Informal Brief together with the court-requested Addendum.
The submission addresses jurisdictional defects, service failures, unsigned and altered orders, record-integrity concerns, denial of requested ADA accommodations, and cumulative structural error arising from the absence of an evidentiary hearing.
The informal brief and addendum were submitted in compliance with the Court's directive and preserve all issues raised for appellate review.
On December 24, 2025, Respondent Madeline Lee, through counsel Kyle T. Manderfeld, served and filed a Respondent's Brief and Addendum.
That same day, Appellant filed an Appellant's Reply Brief, responding to Respondent's arguments and record characterizations.
On December 30, 2025, Appellant filed an Appellant's Motion to Strike Material Misstatement under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127. The motion challenges a factual assertion in Respondent's brief stating that “each referee order in the record has been countersigned by a judge,” and attaches record citations in support of the request for corrective relief.
Notices to the Court
On December 8, 2025, Appellant filed a series of targeted notices with the Court of Appeals for the purpose of preserving record issues and clarifying procedural posture.
These notices identify material discrepancies affecting jurisdiction, representation status, and the completeness and reliability of the district court record, and were filed without seeking immediate substantive relief.
- Notice of Jurisdictional Concerns: identifying post-appeal district court activity, service defects, and inconsistent notice timing.
- Notice Regarding Representation Status: advising that counsel who litigated below had neither entered an appearance nor withdrawn in the appeal.
- Notice of Irregularities: documenting discrepancies in the district court and appellate record without requesting immediate relief.
These notices were informational in nature and filed for preservation.
Current Posture
On January 7, 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a Notice of Nonoral Conference setting the matter for consideration on March 4, 2026, and identifying the panel assigned to decide the appeal.
On January 8, 2026, the Court issued an Order deferring Appellant's Motion to Strike to the merits panel, stating that the panel assigned to decide the appeal is best positioned to resolve the motion in conjunction with its consideration of the merits.
On January 14, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion for Temporary Stay of Enforcement seeking a temporary stay of enforcement of the district court's January 2, 2026 Order to Show Cause and related enforcement proceedings, including the January 22, 2026 evidentiary hearing, pending resolution of this appeal.
The appeal remains pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Briefing is complete, and the case has been scheduled for decision on a nonoral conference calendar.
No decision on the merits has been issued. This page will be updated as additional orders, briefing, or record materials are filed.