Motion to terminate an ex parte domestic relationship personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950; “Dating relationship” (MCL 600.2950(30)(a)); Judicial estoppel; The “prior success model”; Spohn v Van Dyke Pub Sch; Scope of the PPO

The court held that judicial estoppel barred respondent from arguing no “dating relationship” existed between the parties. It also rejected her assertion the PPO ordered her to refrain from filing police reports, concluding that none of the items in the PPO did so. Respondent appealed the trial court’s order denying her motion to terminate an ex parte domestic relationship PPO obtained by petitioner. She first contended “the great weight of the evidence did not establish” that the parties had a dating relationship for purposes of MCL 600.2950. But the court found that she was judicially estopped from making this argument in light of her prior court filings in another trial court. “Respondent successfully and unequivocally asserted the existence of a previous dating relationship between respondent and petitioner in the ex parte domestic relationship PPO petition filed in the Macomb Circuit Court. In the verified statement accompanying that petition, respondent asserted that petitioner was her ex-boyfriend, the parties dated for a few months in the summer of 2018, and their relationship ended in” 9/18. That trial court granted her petition “without a hearing and issued the PPO against petitioner. Moreover, respondent asserted that a dating relationship existed between the parties in previously filed police reports, in addition to the prior domestic relationship PPO petitions filed in the” trial court here. The court found these circumstances “similar to Spohn, where the defendant sought to apply judicial estoppel on the basis of statements the plaintiff had made in the plaintiff’s previous bankruptcy proceeding.” Respondent here alleged “in the verified statement attached to the domestic relationship petition in the Macomb Circuit Court that she and petitioner were previously in a dating relationship and the Macomb Circuit Court issued a PPO in response. While the PPO was later terminated, the Macomb Circuit Court necessarily relied on the existence of a dating relationship to issue the PPO because” none of the other enumerated relationships in the statute were applicable. The court determined that permitting “respondent to proceed with the wholly inconsistent assertion that a dating relationship did not exist between herself and petitioner presents a danger of inconsistent rulings[.]” Affirmed.