This is an appeal of the issuance of an ex-parte PPO which raised several legal issues.
(1) Was the trial court required to comply with MCR 2.517(A)(1) and make a specific finding of facts and conclusions of law. COA found that MCR 3.707 does not incorporate a requirement for explicit factual findings or legal conclusion. The COA did not that it would be preferable for the trial court to do so, but that it is not required.
(2) The COA found that the fact that the parties were living together when the alleged stalking took place does not make it not stalking
(3) MCL 600.2950(4) does not condition the issuance of a PPO on a finding that the petitioner feels threatened by the conduct to be enjoined.
(4) That the respondent did not preserve his argument that the PPO should not have been issued on an ex-parte basis as he did not raise it until he filed his motion for reconsideration.
(5) The trial court conducted an evidentuary hearing during its motion call on his objection. The Respondent argued that he was not prepaired to do an evidentuary hearing at that time and expected it to thereafter be set for an evidentuary hearing. The COA noted that he did not move for a separate evidentiary hearing in his written motion nor did he request one during the hearing.
(6) The COA did not find anything on the record which indicated that the Trial Court placed the burden of proof on the respondent.