Whether the trial court properly denied the respondent-Brian Boggs' motion to set aside an existing PPO; Whether the PPO was extended before it expired; MCR 3.707(B); Whether it was possible for the court to grant relief; Mootness; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Whether the issue was of public significance and was likely to recur while evading judicial review; City of Warren v. Detroit; Whether issuance of the PPO resulted in any collateral consequences affecting the respondent; Hayford v. Hayford; People v. Cathey

Since the PPO was not extended and expired on September 27, 2008, the court could provide no relief and dismissed the appeal as moot. Respondent-Brian Boggs appealed from the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside an ex parte PPO. The petitioner obtained a PPO against him on September 27, 2007. The order contained an expiration date of September 27, 2008. The parties did not assert, and the record did not indicate, the PPO was extended before it expired. Further, respondent did not show the likelihood an additional PPO will be issued against him and the record was devoid of any evidence indicating the issuance of the PPO resulted in any collateral consequences continuing to affect him. Thus, it was impossible for the court to grant relief and respondent's issues challenging the PPO were moot.