Motion to terminate a personal protection order (PPO); Due process; Right to be heard; Waiver

Concluding there was no remedy it could offer petitioner, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO she had obtained against him. After respondent filed his motion, “petitioner was personally served an ‘Electronic Hearing Notice’” (the Notice) with the motion and a 7/11/23 notice of hearing attached. The Notice stated “the time and location of the hearing that would be conducted on Zoom. [It] included detailed instructions that specified how and where to navigate on the Zoom website. The Notice also stated that failure to appear for the hearing could result in the trial court granting respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO. Petitioner did not appear in the court room for the hearing.” The court noted she did not offer any “evidence, as part of the record or otherwise, that the trial court had information that petitioner was waiting in the wrong Zoom waiting room.” It concluded it could not offer her any remedy under the circumstances. The issues she raised as to “violations of her right to due process, her failure to receive timely notice, the lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Notice being confusing and ambiguous, are all issues that cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” There was no record evidence supporting “error or negligence by the trial court or its staff.” As a result, it had “no basis to reverse the trial court’s order or order the trial court to hold another hearing or change or vacate its prior order,” and it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting “respondent’s motion. Petitioner may file a new petition for a PPO against respondent, assuming there is still a basis to do so.” The court noted “that if the allegations in petitioner’s verified statement is true, it is clear that the [trial] court and its staff failed to ensure [her] due-process rights were protected.” It appeared that no one asked her “which virtual courtroom she was waiting in or whether she needed assistance finding the correct one. The responses she did allegedly receive were misleading and not helpful. If what petitioner claims happened is true, such failure by the [trial] court and its staff is unacceptable.” However, it is not within the court’s “purview to make such determinations in the first instance, which squarely rests with the trial court.”