e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 44930
Opinion Date : 01/28/2010
e-Journal Date : 02/03/2010
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Gupton v. Johnston
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Donofrio, Meter, and Murray
Full Text Opinion

Denial of motion to terminate a personal protection order; MCR 3.707(A); B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Henry v. Dow Chem. Co.; Kloian v. Domino's Pizza, LLC; MCR 3.707(A)(1)(b); MCR 3.707(A)(2); Allard v. State Farm Ins. Co.; MCL 600.2950(19)(b); Mootness


The trial court erred in failing to grant the respondent a hearing on his motion to terminate, but because the PPO had expired and thus no remedy was available, the court declared the issue moot and dismissed the appeal. MCR 3.707(A)(1)(b) authorized respondent to file a motion to terminate the PPO, and he filed his motion on August 29, 2008, well within the 14-day time limit in the court rule. Under MCR 3.707(A)(2), the trial court was required to hold a hearing on the motion, as use of the term "must" in this provision rendered a hearing mandatory. The trial court erred by determining respondent was not entitled to a hearing because it had already held a hearing before it granted the PPO. The trial court erred by essentially considering respondent's motion to terminate the PPO as a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the PPO. Thus, respondent was entitled to a hearing pursuant to MCR 3.707(A)(2). However, the PPO had expired and could not be vacated. Even if respondent had obtained a hearing and succeeded, the only relief would have been a law enforcement agency inputting the relevant information (modification, termination, etc.) into the LEIN, not the actual removal of the PPO from the system.

Full Text Opinion