Petitions for a nondomestic personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950a; Stalking; MCL 750.411h; PF v JF

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in making its findings of fact as to the petitions for nondomestic PPOs against petitioner’s neighbors (respondents-AR and ER), or abuse its discretion in denying the petitions. Petitioner argued on appeal that he provided sufficient evidence of stalking to support his petitions. The court disagreed. Among other things, he asserted “that his survey stakes, or property markers, were removed and destroyed on” 1/11/24. While it was undisputed that his “property was destroyed, there was no persuasive evidence showing that respondents were responsible for these incidents.” He further “alleged several incidents in which ER harassed him by running toward him and yelling.” However, he failed to “provide exact dates or times. Petitioner did not provide sufficient details for his claims that AR and ER yelled at him and insulted him. When the trial court asked for exact dates, petitioner did not remember, only noting that the last time this happened was in the ‘[l]ast year or something.’ Thus, given this lack of detail, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that these allegations did not rise to the level of ‘stalking’ under MCL 750.411h(1)(e).” The petition against ER also “alleged that respondents ‘installed powerful spot lights that are aimed [at] [petitioner’s] house,’ causing [him] to ‘[b]lack out my windows so [he] can [s]leep.’ In his petition against AR, petitioner alleged that the spot lights ‘are aimed at [his] house.’” He contended that the light from their flood lights constituted unconsented contact under MCL 750.411h(1)(f)(vii). But the court agreed “with the trial court that such allegations, if true, might constitute some type of ‘ordinance violations’ but do not necessarily rise to the level of requiring a PPO.” Petitioner asserted that the totality of the incidents constituted “stalking and has caused him emotional distress. [He] testified that he is ‘very fearful’ and has endured ‘repeated emotional stress and trauma.’ However, worth noting, when asked by the trial court if there was anything respondents actually did to him, he replied: ‘No.’ Petitioner admitted that neither AR nor ER physically harmed or threatened him. Nor has [he] sought any medical treatment or counseling.” Affirmed.