e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 48009
Opinion Date : 01/27/2011
e-Journal Date : 03/02/2011
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Geloneck v. Vavra
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Markey and Donofrio; Concurrence – Zahra
Full Text Opinion
Issues:

Appeal from the trial court's denial of the respondent's motion to terminate a PPO; Dismissal of appeal as moot; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Detroit v. Ambassador Bridge Co.; Whether the respondent identified any "collateral consequences"; Hayford v. Hayford

Summary

The court dismissed the respondent's appeal from the trial court's order denying his motion to terminate a PPO as moot because the PPO expired by its terms on September 4, 2010 and he failed to identify any collateral consequences that might arise from the entry of the PPO. The court noted that an appellate court will not decide moot issues as a general rule. Even if there was merit to respondent's claim that the trial court failed to correctly apply and enforce the statutory requirements for issuing a PPO, since the PPO was expired, remand for reconsideration of his motion would serve no purpose. "Fashioning a remedy for any hardship respondent may have experienced while the PPO was in effect is impossible." The court also concluded that this appeal did not present an issue of public significance that was likely to recur and yet evade judicial review that would warrant reviewing the merits of respondent's argument.

Full Text Opinion