Ex parte personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950a(12); MCL 750.411h (stalking); Extension of a PPO

“Finding that no grounds supported entry of the original PPO ex parte nor” its extension, the court reversed and remanded. The parties were “siblings feuding over property they share as tenants in common. After having an argument on the property one day, one of” them, petitioner-DJH, sought a PPO against his sister, respondent-GMB. “The trial court issued the PPO ex parte against GMB, and by motion of DJH, subsequently extended the PPO for one additional year. On appeal, GMB, appearing in propria persona,” argued that it abused its discretion in doing so. The court noted that “DJH’s petition checked the box indicating that ‘immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage’ would result from any delay flowing from giving notice to GMB, but, the petition alleged no facts to support this assertion.” Instead, all that the court could gather from DJH’s petition was “that GMB threatened to sell the home, and because [they] share equal property rights to the home, we do not believe that GMB’s statements regarding sale amount to irreparable injury to DJH. Because DJH failed to show that he would sustain immediate and irreparable injury if notice was given to GMB, the trial court abused its discretion in entering the PPO ex parte.” And even if the court “agreed that the trial court had sufficient grounds to issue the PPO ex parte,” it concluded “the trial court abused its discretion in extending the PPO for an additional year.” First, the record contained “limited support that GMB engaged in ‘stalking’ or ‘harassment,’ as those terms are defined by statute, to support issuance of the initial PPO against her. Between the additional evidence regarding the September 8 incident and the lack of additional contact beyond that, the PPO should not have been extended.” Petitioner bore “the burden of establishing a justification for continuance of a PPO at a hearing on a motion to terminate the PPO.” Because the court believed DJH did not meet his burden, it found “that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the extension.”