Since my last PPO caselaw update in November there has been several more PPO cases which have come out from the Court of Appeals (including one published case). You can find copies of every PPO opinion that has been issued published on my PPO webpage at https://www.mifamlaw.com/ppo/
BQ v FS – June 19, 2018 – 341514 – This is a PJ case code case (a PPO involving a minor) between two minors. In this case the minor petition did not testify, but instead her mother testified on her behalf. The COA vacated the PPO finding that the Petitioner did not meet her burden of proof as only hearsay was presented during the hearing. [I know this case is before November, but I forgot about PJ cases when I did my previous updates. It turns out that this is the one and only PJ case code that has ever been to the COA]
Workman v Brent – Nov 13, 2018 – 330325 – The COA previously dismissed this appeal for mootness; however, the MSC remanded it back to the COA in light of TM v MZ 501 Mich 312. The COA upheld the PPO on remand, but the opinion is worth a read and it addresses a challenge on 2nd amendment grounds and if the Petitioner had a property interest in the rental property.
Moeller v Lindke – Nov 20, 2018 – 340208 – The COA reversed the PPO finding that the alleged actions did not constitute stalking and discussed the extent that the Court can use facts learned from other cases pending before them.
Blue v Shenkus – Dec 18, 2018 – 341657 – The COA up held the PPO. What is unusual about this case is the extent to which the COA permitted the trial court to utilize facts from a different case. The lesson would be to ask the Judge to specify what facts the court found persuasive enough to justify the PPO and to order a transcript from the prior proceeding if you are going to appeal a case where the court took judicial notice of a different hearing before it.
Harrell v Latham – Dec 20, 2018 – 342049 – The COA overturned the termination of a PPO by the Trial Court. In this case they found that the trial court applied the wrong standard of proof and that while the dismissal of criminal charges can be considered by the court as relevant to the petitioner’s credibility the court can not delegate its duty to make credibility determinations to the district court.
Hewelt v Hewelt – Jan 8, 2019 – 340170 – The COA upheld a PPO contempt convention where the person was driving past the protected person’s house. [I get the feeling in part that it was upheld because of the numerous other conduct that he did – personally it feels like a stretch of the statute to have it apply to driving past the residence in and of it self.] The COA did recognize that the court using consecutive sentences was not appropriate but that there was nothing that COA could still do since he already served his time.
Wong v Thorington – March 7, 2019 – 341044 – The COA reversed the trial court’s order finding the respondent in criminal contempt due to the following issues: (1) the trial court allowed him to represent himself without first informing him of his right to an attorney or the public’s obligation to pay for his representation in the event of his indigence; (2) the trial court used conduct by the respondent outside of what was alleged in the show cause as a basis for finding him in contempt. The COA noted that Due Process required the Defendant to have adequate notice of the other violations before being called to defend himself from them.
Berryman v Mackey – March 12, 2019 – 340879 – In a PUBLISHED case the COA vacated a PH Stalking PPO that the former mayor of Adrian placed on someone that what publicly critical of him in commission meetings and in e-mail exchanges. [I am a bit surprised that this case was published as it does not anything new – Much of what was discussed was discussed in more length the published TM v MZ DN 329190 Oct 23, 2018 decision but that decision focused more on the 1st amended issues instead of if the conduct met the definition of harassment]
Ruffino v Barton – March 19, 2019 – 343153 – The COA upheld a PPO on appeal which was challenged on insufficient evidence and first amendment grounds.