e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 40920
Opinion Date : 11/04/2008
e-Journal Date : 11/10/2008
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Aycox v. Evans
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Servitto, Donofrio, and Fort Hood
Full Text Opinion

Whether the trial court properly entered one order terminating a PPO against respondent-Richards (Docket No. 280207), and one denying a PPO against respondent-Evans (Docket No. 280401); Pickering v. Pickering; Woodard v. Custer; Hayford v. Hayford; Bias; People v. Mixon; Department of Transp. v. Initial Transp., Inc.; Mitcham v. Detroit; Whether the trial court stated a PPO was not available to resolve disputes among neighbors; MCL 750.411h; MCL 750.411i; MCL 600.2950a(1); Whether the trial court excluded evidence; MRE 103(a)(2); People v. Harris; Whether the court reporter altered the transcript of the PPO hearing; People v. Abdella


In these consolidated cases, the trial court properly entered one order terminating a PPO against respondent-Richards and one denying a PPO against respondent-Evans. Many of petitioner's claims of error were predicated on the trial court's alleged inability to decide the cases impartially due to personal bias against her. These issues were not preserved for appeal because petitioner did not move to disqualify the judge for personal bias under MCR 2.003(B)(1). Further, the record did not factually support her claims. Nothing in the record supported petitioner's claims the trial court discriminated against her because of her class, race, or alleged disability, or the trial court's rulings were the result of general corruption "with an alterior [sic] motive," the nature of which was not disclosed. Although the record did indicate the trial court was made aware of petitioner's prior criminal conviction, there was no indication the trial court's rulings were based on the conviction. Further, nothing in the record suggested the trial court was aware of petitioner's employment status, much less it took his status into account in issuing its rulings. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion