e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 35430
Opinion Date : 03/27/2007
e-Journal Date : 04/10/2007
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Perrett v. Rhode
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Zahra, Bandstra, and Owens
Full Text Opinion

PPO (MCL 600.2950); Pickering v. Pickering; Brandt v. Brandt; Kampf v. Kampf; Stalking (MCL 750.411h(2)); “Unconsented contact” (MCL 750.411h(1)(e))


The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued a PPO prohibiting the defendant from contacting or communicating with plaintiff. Defendant argued the trial court failed to determine on the record there was reasonable cause to believe a PPO should have been issued. Plaintiff testified without her consent and in direct disregard of her expressed desire the contact be discontinued, defendant repeatedly contacted her by telephone and email, entered onto her property, and delivered items to her property. The trial court held, based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, this “unconsented contact” constituted harassment under MCL 750.411h(1)(c). Thus, it found defendant had engaged in stalking as prohibited by MCL 750.411h(2). Under MCL 600.2950(4), the trial court was required to issue a PPO if it found reasonable cause to believe defendant might commit one of the acts listed in MCL 600.2950(1), including stalking. In making this decision, the trial court had to consider both plaintiff’s testimony and the fact defendant previously committed the act of stalking. Although not expressly stated on the record, the trial court clearly found reasonable cause existed. Based on the information before it, the trial court’s decision to issue the PPO was within the principled range of outcomes. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion