e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 40688
Opinion Date : 10/07/2008
e-Journal Date : 10/10/2008
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Stybel v. Schoonover
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - O'Connell, Smolenski, and Gleicher
Full Text Opinion

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the respondent's motion set aside a personal protection order (PPO); Whether the petitioner met his burden of proof the respondent's conduct constituted stalking; Hayford v. Hayford; Pickering v. Pickering; Sweebe v. Sweebe; MCL 750.411h and 750.411i; "Stalking" (MCL 750.411h(1)(d)); "Harassment" (MCL750.411h(1)(c)); MCL 750.411h(4); Whether the PPO provided sufficient notice of the crime charged; People v. Darden; MCL 600.2950a(1); MCR 6.112(D)


The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the respondent's motion set aside a PPO. Respondent argued the trial court should not have entered the PPO or denied her request to terminate the PPO because petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof respondent's conduct constituted stalking. The court concluded the evidence showed respondent engaged in a course of conduct involving unconsented contact directed toward petitioner. She commented on his appearance, left notes commenting on his appearance and indicating a desire for sexual relations, and left notes and food items on his car. Although respondent denied she had been told to leave petitioner alone and stated she had actually been encouraged to pursue him, the trial court clearly rejected this testimony. Petitioner and his witnesses also testified respondent had been repeatedly asked to stop contacting petitioner and she would stop for a while but then start up again, explaining "she couldn't control herself." Consequently, she was banned from the farm where petitioner lived unless she called and was given permission to come over. Finally, petitioner and the farm owner returned her things and told her she was not to have any further contact with them at all, but she kept showing up, calling, and leaving notes. Petitioner further testified he felt threatened by her. The evidence respondent continued to engage in repeated, unconsented contact with petitioner - despite his requests she stop - gave rise to a presumption the continued contact caused him "to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested." Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion