11/18/2025
DA 25-0083
Case Number: DA 25-0083
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2025 MT 266N
JESSICA ZIMMERMANN,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER WARDLE,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-24-455C
Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Christopher Wardle, Self-Represented, Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee:
Jessica Zimmermann, Self-Represented, Wilsall, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 22, 2025
Decided: November 18, 2025
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 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 Montana
Reports.
¶2 Christopher Wardle (Wardle) appeals from the permanent order of protection
entered, following a hearing, by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County,
granting the petition filed by Jessica Zimmermann (Zimmermann).
¶3 Zimmermann petitioned the District Court for a temporary order of protection and
for a hearing in September 2024, alleging she was the victim of stalking and harassment
by Wardle, specifically, that he had engaged in “daily harassment, bullying, threats,
defamation, and stalking,” including numerous telephone calls, in-person taunting and
threats, creation of a “completely false smear site” against Zimmermann, and other online
harassment. She explained their mutual involvement in animal rescue and adoption efforts,
that Wardle’s actions necessitated hiring of security at an adoption event, and that she had
reported him to law enforcement many times. Zimmermann requested that the order be
made permanent. The District Court entered a temporary order of protection and set the
matter for hearing on October 7, 2024.
¶4 At the hearing, the parties and their witnesses appeared and testified, and
documentary evidence was offered and admitted. On November 8, 2024, the District Court
2
entered a permanent order of protection supported by findings of fact and conclusions of
law, including as summarized below:
The parties own “competing dog rescue business[es].” An initial dispute
arose between the parties in the spring of 2024 regarding Zimmermann’s care
of Wardle’s rescue dogs, leading Wardle to accuse Zimmermann of “stealing
and selling several of his rescue dogs[,]” which Zimmermann disputed.
“Ms. Zimmermann testified that because of this dispute, she has been subject
to daily harassment, bullying, threats, defamation and stalking by Mr.
Wardle.” This took place “predominately online,” but included “multiple
threatening and harassing telephone calls which [Zimmermann] believed had
been made by Wardle or his friends.” Zimmermann “also testified that Mr.
Wardle has also harassed her in person.”
Wardle “created a false online smear site on Facebook targeting Ms.
Zimmermann and her business which he promotes to people who follow Ms.
Zimmermann’s business online.”
Zimmermann testified that, although she has demanded that he cease his
harassment, Wardle’s threats have continued and that she feared for her
safety. She “repeatedly reported Mr. Wardle’s conduct to the Gallatin
County Sheriff’s Office,” which “recommended that Ms. Zimmermann
obtain an order of protection against Mr. Wardle.”
“Mr. Wardle’s online, telephonic and in person harassment has caused Ms.
Zimmermann to suffer substantial fear and emotional distress.” Wardle “has
continued to harass Ms. Zimmermann after receiving actual notice from Ms.
Zimmermann to cease contact with her,” and therefore Wardle’s conduct
“constitutes the criminal offense of stalking as defined by § 45-5-220,
MCA.” Zimmermann “is therefore entitled to an order of protection against
Mr. Wardle under Title 40, Chapter 15 of the Montana Code Annotated.”
The District Court also entered a finding taking judicial notice that on November 6, 2024,
Wardle was cited by the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office for the offense of felony stalking,
based upon Wardle’s “alleged violations of the September 20, 2024, Temporary Order of
Protection.” The District Court noted that this criminal matter was then pending before the
Gallatin County Justice Court under Cause No. TK-24-6364.
3
¶5 Wardle appeals from the order.
¶6 “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). “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.”
Lockhead v. Lockhead,
2013 MT 368, ¶ 12,
373 Mont. 120,
314 P.3d 915 (citation omitted).
“[A] district court’s decision is presumed correct and it is the appellant who bears the
burden of establishing error by that court.” In re Marriage of McMahon,
2002 MT 198,
¶ 7,
311 Mont. 175,
53 P.3d 1266.
¶7 Wardle argues “that there are ‘Genuine Issues of Material Fact.’ That the court
erred in fact by failure to include weighty, detailed evidence and third party witness
testimony.” He contends the District Court’s findings and conclusions were generalized
statements that simply recite Zimmermann’s contentions, lack specificity, and lack “factual
review of the content or any content allegations.” He challenges Zimmermann’s testimony
as “broad, sweeping and unevidenced claims,” and contends she admitted while testifying
there had been no specific threats, which the District Court ignored in its order. He argues
that his Facebook comments were made only on his pages, not on Zimmermann’s.
Zimmermann answers that she is “the victim of very serious and continued harassment”
from Wardle that caused her “to fear for her well-being, and the safety of her family,
animals and business,” and asks the District Court’s order be affirmed.
4
¶8 However meritorious Wardle’s testimony-based arguments may be, the problem is
that he has failed to provide a certified transcript of the hearing, and thus has not provided
the necessary record to support his contentions and satisfy his appellate burden to
demonstrate error. “[A] district court’s decision is presumed correct and it is the appellant
who bears the burden of establishing error by that court.” McMahon, ¶ 7. We cannot
accept the evidentiary contentions in Wardle’s briefing without a transcript to review and
verify them. As provided by the Rules of Appellate Procedure:
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 the
court with a sufficient record on appeal may result in dismissal of the appeal
or affirmance of the district court[.]
M. R. App. P. 8(2). While Wardle filed a notice of “Transcripts Deemed Necessary for
Appeal,” and quotes in his briefing to a supposed transcript of the hearing, which he labels
as “Exhibit D,” there is no transcript with the briefing or the case record identified as
“Exhibit D” or, more importantly, no transcript that has been prepared, certified as true and
correct, and signed by the court reporter. M. R. App. P. 8(4)(b).1 Case transcripts must be
in a searchable Portable Document Format, and have the court reporter’s signature affixed.
M. R. App. P. 8(4)(b). Given the failure to provide an adequate record, reversible error
cannot be demonstrated. M. R. App. P. 8(2) (“failure to present the Court with a sufficient
record may result in dismissal or affirmance of the district court”).
1
Attached to Wardle’s opening brief is an itemized “Exhibit List” that references a transcript of
the October 7, 2024 hearing as “Exhibit D.” However, there is no transcript, labeled as “Exhibit D”
or otherwise, either attached to or in the Appendix to the briefing. The Clerk of Court has verified
that arrangements for preparation of a certified transcript were not made, and one was not prepared
by the court reporter or filed with the Court.
5
¶9 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 review. Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, we
conclude that the Appellant has not met his burden of persuasion upon a sufficient record.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We Concur:
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
6
