e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 44793
Opinion Date : 01/12/2010
e-Journal Date : 01/20/2010
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Colwell v. Schultz
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Memorandum - K.F. Kelly, Hoekstra, and Whitbeck
Full Text Opinion

Mootness; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; MCR 3.707(B)(1); Hayford v. Hayford


The court dismissed the appeal as moot regarding the trial court's order denying the respondent's motion to terminate a PPO. Petitioner obtained an ex parte PPO against respondent in February 2009. After respondent filed a motion to terminate the PPO, the trial court continued the order, but modified it to change the expiration date from February 2010 to August 2009. "As a general rule, an appellate court will not decide moot issues." "An issue is deemed moot when an event occurs that renders it impossible for a reviewing court to grant relief." Here, remand for a new hearing would serve no purpose because the PPO had expired and there was no indication in the record, nor did the parties contend, the order was extended before it expired. Further, nothing in the record indicated issuance of the order will result in any serious collateral consequences.

Full Text Opinion