Sufficiency of the evidence for the trial court to impose and maintain a PPO against the defendant; Pickering v. Pickering; Pobursky v. Gee; Hayford v. Hayford; Hill v. City of Warren; Deference to the trial court's credibility decisions; MCR 2.613(C); MCL 600.2950a (relief under this section shall not be granted unless the petition alleges facts constituting "stalking"); MCL 750.411h(1)(d); "Course of conduct"; "Harassment"; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); "Unconsented contact"; MCL 750.411h(1)(e); The effect of the trespassing allegation; Whether defendant's conduct "would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed, or molested"; Whether the trial court had to make an "explicit finding" that the plaintiff proved all of the necessary elements; MCL 600.2950a(7) and MCR 3.705(B)(6); MCR 2.613(A)

The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to impose and maintain a PPO against the defendant. Thus, the trial court's ruling was not "inconsistent with substantial justice," and the court would not disturb it on appeal. The parties were neighbors and had various conflicts. Plaintiff alleged that defendant "trespassed on her property to antagonize her dogs, used racial slurs against her, fired his gun to intimidate her, pointed his finger at her as though he was shooting her, told her that her child's disability was the result of her drug use, spit on her son, made noise early in the morning, and disrupted her daughter's graduation party." Defendant's wife testified that she had no knowledge he ever engaged in the alleged conduct. She also claimed that when the police investigated the trespassing allegations, they were unable to match the tracks leading from defendant's property to his shoes. Finally, the wife asserted that plaintiff's son had pulled down his pants in front of them. Plaintiff denied this. The trial court did not explicitly announce that it was making factual findings, but told defendant that he could not trespass on plaintiff's property and antagonize her dogs, he could not make motions indicating he was shooting her, and in the trial court's opinion defendant had fired his gun to intimidate plaintiff. Defendant contended on appeal that because the police investigation did not substantiate the trespassing allegation, no harassment occurred. The court noted in spite of this, it was still within the trial court's purview to find that he did trespass and there was no clear error. Further, defendant did not contest numerous other allegations plaintiff made. The trial court also stated that it believed that defendant had made threatening gestures toward plaintiff and fired his gun to intimidate her. "Finding that these actions constituted 'harassment' was not clear error." Affirmed.