Mootness after PPO expiration; TM v MZ; Motion to terminate PPO; MCL 600.2950a (nondomestic PPO); Stalking; MCL 750.411h; Aggravated stalking; MCL 750.411i; Electronic stalking; MCL 750.411s; Petitioner’s burden to justify continuation; Hayford v Hayford; Hearing impairment; Due process; Homeowners association (HOA); Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

The court held that respondent’s challenge to the expired PPO was not moot, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to terminate it, and his hearing impairment did not result in a due-process violation. Petitioner obtained a nondomestic stalking-type PPO after alleging that respondent-HOA president repeatedly appeared near her home, sent harassing communications, threatened to disclose personal information, and used HOA matters to pressure her and her husband. Although the PPO expired while the appeal was pending, the appeal remained live because an improperly issued PPO could be identified in LEIN as rescinded. At the hearing on respondent’s motion to terminate, petitioner also testified that after the PPO issued, respondent continued driving by her home, shining lights into it, and appearing outside despite the condominium association having been placed in receivership. Respondent denied much of the alleged conduct, but emails supported petitioner’s testimony that he threatened to publicize information about her. The trial court found respondent’s testimony argumentative, evasive, and not credible. Giving appropriate deference to those credibility findings, the court concluded petitioner “established a justification for the continuance of the PPO” and met her burden after respondent moved to terminate it. The court also rejected his contention that his hearing impairment prevented meaningful participation in the Zoom hearing. Once respondent disclosed difficulty hearing, the trial court directed him to signal if he could not hear, asked others to speak louder, and offered to reconvene in person with hearing assistance if necessary. Respondent said the accommodation was sufficient and did not thereafter indicate that he could not hear. Thus, he “was able to, and in fact did, participate in the hearing.” Affirmed.