Zimmermann v. Wardle (Mont. 2025): The Consequences of Failing to Provide a Certified Transcript in Protection-Order Appeals

I. Introduction

Zimmermann v. Wardle, 2025 MT 266N (DA 25-0083), is a memorandum opinion of the Montana Supreme Court affirming a permanent order of protection issued by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Although designated as a noncitable, nonprecedential decision under the Court’s Internal Operating Rules, the case is a clear and pointed illustration of a recurring and practically important appellate principle:

The appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient appellate record, including a properly certified transcript, and failure to do so will likely result in affirmance of the district court’s decision.

The dispute arises in the emotionally charged and fact-intensive context of a stalking and harassment claim between two self-represented parties engaged in competing dog rescue operations. The petitioner, Jessica Zimmermann, successfully obtained a permanent order of protection against the respondent, Christopher Wardle, based on allegations of ongoing harassment, threats, and stalking—especially online and through social media.

On appeal, Wardle focused almost entirely on contesting the factual basis for the order—challenging the sufficiency, accuracy, and weight of the evidence relied upon by the District Court. The Montana Supreme Court, however, never reached the factual merits of those challenges. Instead, it affirmed solely on the basis that Wardle failed to provide a certified transcript of the evidentiary hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This commentary examines:

The factual and procedural background of the case;
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in affirming the order of protection;
The precedents and rules applied;
The practical and doctrinal impact of the decision, particularly for appeals of orders of protection and for self-represented litigants;
Clarification of the key legal concepts involved.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Factual Background in the District Court

The District Court found that Zimmermann and Wardle each owned what the court called “competing dog rescue businesses.” A dispute arose in Spring 2024 about Zimmermann’s care of Wardle’s rescue dogs, with Wardle accusing Zimmermann of “stealing and selling” several of his animals—a charge Zimmermann disputed.

Following this dispute, Zimmermann alleged that Wardle engaged in a pattern of harassing behavior, including:

“Daily harassment, bullying, threats, defamation, and stalking”, primarily occurring online;
Multiple threatening and harassing telephone calls, which she believed were made by Wardle or his associates;
In-person harassment and taunting;
Creation of a “false online smear site” on Facebook targeting her personally and her business, which he promoted to her customer base and followers;
Conduct that caused her substantial fear and emotional distress, and led her to hire security at at least one adoption event;
Repeated reports of Wardle’s conduct to the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office, which in turn recommended an order of protection.

After a hearing on October 7, 2024, at which both parties and witnesses testified and documents were admitted, the District Court entered a permanent order of protection on November 8, 2024. The court found that:

Wardle’s conduct—online, telephonic, and in person—caused Zimmermann substantial fear and emotional distress;
Wardle continued the harassment after receiving actual notice from Zimmermann to cease contact;
His conduct constituted the criminal offense of stalking under § 45‑5‑220, MCA;
Zimmermann was entitled to an order of protection under Title 40, Chapter 15, MCA.

The District Court also took judicial notice that on November 6, 2024, Wardle had been cited for felony stalking—based on alleged violations of the temporary order of protection issued in September 2024—and that a related criminal case was pending.

B. The Appeal and Wardle’s Arguments

Wardle, representing himself, appealed the permanent order of protection. His arguments, as characterized by the Supreme Court, were:

There were “Genuine Issues of Material Fact” that the District Court failed to resolve correctly;
The District Court erred by failing to give adequate weight to “detailed evidence and third party witness testimony” allegedly favorable to him;
The court’s findings were overly generalized and essentially a repetition of Zimmermann’s allegations, without specific factual analysis;
Zimmermann’s testimony supposedly consisted of “broad, sweeping and unevidenced claims,” and he contended she admitted there were no specific threats;
He asserted that his Facebook comments were confined to his own page and did not target Zimmermann’s page directly.

In contrast, Zimmermann—also self-represented—responded that she was the victim of serious and persistent harassment that caused her to fear for her own safety, the safety of her family, her animals, and her business, and urged the Supreme Court to affirm the District Court’s order.

C. The Supreme Court’s Holding

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the permanent order of protection.

Crucially, the Court did not affirm because it evaluated and agreed with the District Court’s factual determinations. Instead, it held that:

Wardle had not met his burden to show error because he failed to provide a certified transcript of the October 7, 2024 hearing;
Without a certified transcript, the Court could not review or verify his factual assertions regarding the testimony and evidence;
Under M. R. App. P. 8(2), the failure to provide an adequate record on appeal permits the Supreme Court to affirm the district court’s decision (or dismiss the appeal);
Given that the District Court’s decision is presumed correct and the appellant bears the burden to establish error, Wardle’s failure to provide a sufficient record was fatal to his appeal.

The opinion was issued as a memorandum opinion under Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of the Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules—meaning it is not citable as precedent and is reserved for cases controlled by settled law.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Procedural Posture: A Fact-Intensive Appeal Without a Record

The nature of the dispute—alleged harassment, threats, and stalking—means the case is inherently fact-driven. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, took testimony from both parties and witnesses, and admitted documentary evidence.

On appeal, Wardle did not argue that the District Court applied an incorrect legal standard. Instead, he essentially argued:

That the District Court misunderstood, misweighed, or ignored certain evidence;
That the findings did not accurately reflect the evidence presented (e.g., his claim Zimmermann admitted there were no specific threats);
That the findings were insufficiently specific.

All of these contentions turn on the content of the record—the testimony, exhibits, and hearing proceedings. The Supreme Court cannot simply accept a party’s characterization of evidence in appellate briefing; it must look to the actual record.

Yet the Court found:

Wardle filed a notice of “Transcripts Deemed Necessary for Appeal”;
He referenced a transcript in his briefing and labeled it as “Exhibit D” on an exhibit list attached to his brief;
But no transcript was actually included in the record or submitted as an appendix;
The Clerk of Court verified that no arrangements had been made for preparation of a certified transcript, and none was prepared or filed.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the record was insufficient to evaluate Wardle’s factual arguments, and that under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, affirmance was the proper outcome.

B. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Abuse of Discretion Standard: Fritzler, Boushie, and Lockhead

The Court reiterated the familiar standard of review for orders of protection:

“This Court will not overturn a . . . court’s decision to continue, amend, or make permanent an order of protection absent an abuse of discretion.” (Fritzler v. Bighorn, 2024 MT 27, ¶ 7, 415 Mont. 165, 543 P.3d 571, quoting Boushie v. Windsor, 2014 MT 153, ¶ 8, 375 Mont. 301, 328 P.3d 631.)

In Lockhead v. Lockhead, 2013 MT 368, ¶ 12, 373 Mont. 120, 314 P.3d 915, the Court elaborated:

“The question under this standard is not whether we would have reached the same decision as the trial judge, but whether the trial judge acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason.”

These cases collectively emphasize:

The appellate court’s role is not to re-try the case or re-weigh evidence.
The question is whether the District Court’s decision is so unreasonable, arbitrary, or lacking in conscientious judgment as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
In protection-order cases, the evidentiary record and the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses are especially important, reinforcing the need for deference on factual determinations.

The citation to Fritzler and Boushie confirms that the standard for reviewing orders of protection is well-settled and that Zimmermann v. Wardle does not break new doctrinal ground on this point; it simply applies existing law.

2. Presumption of Correctness and Burden on the Appellant: McMahon

The Court also relied on In re Marriage of McMahon, 2002 MT 198, ¶ 7, 311 Mont. 175, 53 P.3d 1266, for the foundational principle that:

“[A] district court’s decision is presumed correct and it is the appellant who bears the burden of establishing error by that court.”

This presumption of correctness is closely linked to the requirement that the appellant present a sufficient record on appeal. If the record is incomplete—especially if it is missing crucial pieces like a hearing transcript—the appellate court has no basis to conclude that the district court erred. The presumption of correctness then operates to sustain the lower court’s decision.

3. Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure: Rule 8(2) and 8(4)(b)

The Court applied M. R. App. P. 8, which governs the record on appeal, including transcripts.

Rule 8(2) provides (as summarized by the Court):

The appellant has the duty to present the Supreme Court with a record sufficient to enable it to rule upon the issues raised. Failure to present a sufficient record on appeal may result in dismissal of the appeal or affirmance of the district court.

Rule 8(4)(b) addresses transcripts specifically:

Transcripts must be prepared and certified as true and correct by the court reporter;
They must be in a searchable Portable Document Format (PDF);
The court reporter’s signature must be affixed.

The Court emphasized that there was:

No certified transcript in the record;
No transcript attached to the brief or appendix despite the exhibit list referencing “Exhibit D” as the hearing transcript;
No indication that Wardle had arranged for the court reporter to prepare or file a transcript.

Under these rules, the deficiency was not merely a technical oversight. It was determinative of the appeal’s fate.

4. Substantive Law in the Background: Stalking and Orders of Protection

While the Supreme Court did not need to explore the substantive stalking law in depth (because it affirmed on procedural grounds), the District Court’s order was anchored in two key areas of Montana law:

Stalking statute: § 45‑5‑220, MCA – defining the offense of stalking, including repeated harassment or intimidation causing a victim reasonable fear or substantial emotional distress.
Orders of protection: Title 40, Chapter 15, MCA – authorizing courts to issue temporary and permanent orders of protection when specific statutory criteria are met, often by showing that the respondent’s behavior constitutes, or would constitute, a criminal offense such as stalking.

The District Court explicitly found that Wardle’s conduct constituted the offense of stalking and that therefore Zimmermann was entitled to an order of protection under the civil protection-order statutes.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Central Issue on Appeal: Adequacy of the Record

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is straightforward and tightly focused:

The District Court’s decision is presumed correct.
Under McMahon, decisions of the district court come to the Supreme Court with a presumption of correctness.
The appellant bears the burden to show error.
Wardle, as appellant, had to demonstrate that the District Court abused its discretion or otherwise committed reversible error.
To show error, the Court must be able to review the actual record.
Wardle’s challenges were fact-based—he contested how evidence was weighed and what testimony showed. For those issues, the hearing transcript is the critical part of the record.
No certified transcript was provided.
The Court noted:
- No certified transcript had been prepared or filed;
Under Rule 8(2), failure to provide a sufficient record warrants affirmance or dismissal.
Applying M. R. App. P. 8(2), the Court held that because the record was insufficient, reversible error could not be demonstrated.
Result: Affirmance.
Given this deficiency, and applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the Supreme Court affirmed the permanent order of protection without reaching the merits of the factual disputes.

2. Why the Court Could Not Accept Wardle’s Version of the Facts

Wardle’s briefing described the testimony and evidence as he understood it, and he even quoted what he treated as “transcript” excerpts. But appellate courts cannot rely on a party’s uncorroborated account of the record. They must rely on the official record—documents and transcripts properly filed and certified.

Without a certified transcript:

The Court could not verify whether Zimmermann “admitted” what Wardle claimed.
The Court could not check whether the District Court accurately summarized the evidence.
The Court could not assess credibility judgments, nuances of testimony, or specifics of the alleged threats and harassment.

Because the appellate review is constrained to the record, and the record lacked the key component, the Court was effectively barred from second-guessing the District Court’s factual determinations.

3. Memorandum Opinion and Nonprecedential Status

The Court expressly stated that the case is resolved by a memorandum opinion under Section I, Paragraph 3(c), of its Internal Operating Rules:

The case “shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent.”
Only the case’s title, cause number, and disposition will be listed in the Court’s quarterly compilation of noncitable cases.
This signals that, in the Court’s view, the outcome is dictated by settled law (here, Rule 8 and settled principles about the burden and record).

While nonprecedential, the decision still offers an instructive illustration of how strictly the Court enforces the requirement of a sufficient record on appeal.

D. Practical and Doctrinal Impact

1. Appellate Practice: The “Record Problem” as Outcome-Determinative

The most immediate practical impact of Zimmermann v. Wardle is a pointed reminder—especially to self-represented parties—that:

The appeal lives or dies on the record.
Designating a transcript as “necessary” is not enough. One must:
- Arrange with the court reporter for transcript preparation;
- Ensure it is properly certified and filed in compliant, searchable PDF form; and
- Confirm it appears in the record and/or the appellate appendix.
References in briefs to a “transcript” or “Exhibit D” are meaningless if no such document is in the record.

In protective-order appeals—where fact disputes over alleged threats, harassment, or abuse are common—failure to provide a transcript is virtually fatal. Because those appeals typically hinge on what witnesses said and how the trial court evaluated credibility, appellate courts cannot function without a transcript.

2. Pro Se Litigants: Same Rules, Same Burdens

Both parties in this case were self-represented. The Court did not relax the procedural rules because of their pro se status. Montana, like most jurisdictions, holds that:

Self-represented litigants must generally follow the same procedural rules as attorneys.
Lack of legal training does not excuse failure to comply with critical requirements such as preparation of a certified transcript.

The case therefore illustrates the tension in appellate practice: protective-order cases often involve unrepresented parties facing serious consequences, but the appellate process is highly technical and unforgiving of procedural missteps.

3. Orders of Protection and Parallel Criminal Proceedings

The District Court took judicial notice that Wardle had been cited for felony stalking based on alleged violations of the temporary order of protection, with a criminal matter pending in Justice Court. This has several implications:

Independence of civil protection orders:
A civil order of protection can stand independently of any criminal case. The civil standard (under Title 40, Chapter 15) may be different from the criminal burden of proof, and the District Court can act to protect a petitioner even as criminal charges are pending.
Evidentiary significance:
A pending criminal charge may bolster the civil court’s view of the seriousness or persistence of the conduct, though it is not itself a conviction.

The Supreme Court did not rely on the criminal case as a legal foundation for affirmance, but the fact that such a citation existed further underscores the District Court’s view of the risk posed by Wardle’s conduct.

4. Online Harassment and Social Media “Smear Sites”

Although the Supreme Court did not review the facts in detail, the District Court’s findings highlight a now-common theme in modern harassment and stalking cases:

Harassment can occur predominantly online—via social media posts, websites, and targeted digital campaigns.
The creation of a “false online smear site” and harassing communications directed at a person’s customer base or followers can be integral to stalking or harassment.

The case reflects that Montana trial courts will treat such conduct as part of the evidentiary landscape for stalking and orders of protection, just as seriously as in-person actions or phone calls.

5. Affirmance vs. Dismissal Under Rule 8(2)

Rule 8(2) gives the Supreme Court a choice: when the record is insufficient, it may either dismiss the appeal or affirm the district court’s judgment. In Zimmermann v. Wardle, the Court chose affirmance.

This choice is meaningful:

Dismissal might suggest that the appellate court took no position on the underlying merits, leaving some ambiguity.
Affirmance sends a clear signal that, in the absence of a sufficient record, the default outcome is to leave the district court’s order in place.

Particularly in the context of protective orders, the Court’s preference for affirmance when record deficiencies are appellant-caused reflects a strong inclination to maintain protective measures absent a clear showing of error.

IV. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

1. Abuse of Discretion

“Abuse of discretion” is a deferential standard of review. It does not ask whether the appellate court would have decided the case differently. Instead, it asks whether the district court:

Acted arbitrarily;
Acted without conscientious judgment;
Exceeded the bounds of reason.

If the district court’s decision is within a range of reasonable outcomes based on the evidence, the appellate court will not interfere—even if it might personally have weighed the evidence differently.

2. Memorandum Opinion and Noncitable Status

A memorandum opinion in Montana:

Is reserved for cases where the outcome is dictated by clearly established law or straightforward application of settled standards;
Is marked as “shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent” under the Court’s Internal Operating Rules;
Is still a binding resolution of the case between the parties, but cannot be relied on as authoritative precedent in future cases.

3. Orders of Protection

An order of protection (often called a restraining order) is a civil court order designed to protect a person from harassment, abuse, stalking, or threats.

A temporary order of protection can often be obtained quickly and ex parte (without the other party present) if the court finds immediate risk.
A permanent order of protection typically follows a full hearing with both sides present, where the petitioner must meet the statutory criteria (here, under Title 40, Chapter 15, MCA).

Civil protective orders can impose various restrictions, such as:

No-contact provisions;
Stay-away zones (e.g., from home, work, or business);
Restrictions related to third parties, social media, or online contact.

4. Stalking Under § 45‑5‑220, MCA

While the opinion does not reproduce the text of § 45‑5‑220, MCA, the general idea is that stalking involves a course of conduct, typically repeated and targeted, that:

Harasses, intimidates, or threatens a person; and
Causes reasonable fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress.

The District Court’s conclusion that Wardle’s conduct “constitutes the criminal offense of stalking” is significant in the civil protection-order context, even though it is not itself a criminal conviction.

5. Judicial Notice

“Judicial notice” allows courts to accept certain facts as true without requiring formal proof—typically facts that are:

Not reasonably subject to dispute; or
Capable of accurate and ready determination from reliable sources, such as the court’s own records.

Here, the District Court took judicial notice of a citation for felony stalking and the existence of a pending criminal case. It did not determine guilt in that criminal matter; rather, it recognized the formal fact that law enforcement had charged Wardle and that a case was pending.

6. Sufficient Record and Certified Transcript

In appellate practice:

The “record on appeal” is the official collection of documents, exhibits, and transcripts from the trial court proceedings that the appellate court may review.
A “certified transcript” is a written record of the oral proceedings (e.g., testimony, oral rulings) prepared by the court reporter and certified as accurate.

Under Rule 8, the appellant must ensure:

The transcript is ordered, prepared, and certified;
It complies with the required format (e.g., searchable PDF);
It is actually filed with the appellate court as part of the record.

Without such a transcript, appellate courts are severely limited in their ability to review factual disputes, and they may affirm the lower court’s decision on that basis alone.

V. Conclusion: Key Takeaways

Zimmermann v. Wardle is a clear illustration—not of new legal doctrine, but of the rigorous application of settled appellate principles in the context of protection-order litigation.

The most important takeaways are:

The appellant must provide a sufficient record, including a certified transcript.
Designating a transcript as necessary is not enough. Without the actual, certified transcript in the record, factual challenges on appeal almost certainly fail.
The district court’s decision is presumed correct.
Under McMahon, the onus is on the appellant to show error. If critical parts of the record are missing, the presumption of correctness effectively dictates affirmance.
Abuse of discretion is a high bar.
Protection-order decisions, grounded in detailed factual assessments and credibility judgments, will not be overturned absent strong, record-based proof of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Failure to comply with Rule 8 can be outcome-determinative.
Under M. R. App. P. 8(2), the Supreme Court may affirm the district court’s judgment when the appellant fails to provide an adequate record. That is precisely what happened here.
Even nonprecedential opinions signal consistent judicial practice.
Although Zimmermann v. Wardle is a memorandum opinion and cannot be cited as precedent, it exemplifies how the Montana Supreme Court regularly applies its internal operating rules, procedural rules, and standards of review in real disputes—especially in sensitive contexts like stalking and civil protection orders.

For practitioners and self-represented litigants alike, the decision underscores that procedural rigor—particularly in assembling the appellate record—is not optional. In appeals from orders of protection, where facts and credibility are central, the transcript is the indispensable foundation of any meaningful appellate review. Without it, as this case shows, the district court’s order will almost certainly stand.

Zimmermann v. Wardle: The Consequences of Failing to Provide a Certified Transcript in Protection-Order Appeals