Whether the respondent was deprived of a hearing when he tried to challenge the PPO; MCR 3.707(A)(1) and (2); Whether the trial court properly granted the petitioner a PPO; Pickering v. Pickering; Kampf v. Kampf; MCL 600.2950(4); Stalking (MCL 750.411h(1)(d)); “Harassment” (MCL 750.411h(1)(c))

While the trial court erred when it “skirted” MCR 3.707(A)(2) by styling respondent’s motion as a motion for reconsideration when it was a motion to terminate, and it was clear respondent did not receive a hearing because the trial court did not permit him to present witnesses, since the PPO had terminated by its own terms, the court concluded the issue was moot. Considering respondent’s challenge to the merits of the trial court’s grant of the PPO, the court could not say there was no justification or excuse for the ruling. While respondent contended there was no reasonable cause to believe he might commit any of the acts listed in MCL 600.2950, the court concluded the witnesses’ testimony at the hearing suggested otherwise. Petitioner testified although respondent never physically assaulted her and made no direct threat to her safety, there were several recent frightening incidents. She testified his behavior and rage toward her were escalating. Another witness testified after the parties stopped dating, respondent would not interact with petitioner for a while, and then would come back into the picture, wanting to start the relationship again, and every time he came back into petitioner’s life, he became angrier and his behavior was escalating. A third witness testified respondent continuously tried to intimidate petitioner at AA meetings, and he had observed him driving through parking lots at meetings, finding out where she was, and sitting across the street from her house. Affirmed.