e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 54599
Opinion Date : 05/16/2013
e-Journal Date : 05/22/2013
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Satterfield v. Olivares
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Memorandum – Fort Hood, Fitzgerald, and O’Connell
Full Text Opinion

Issuance of an ex parte PPO; "Plain error" review; Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Ristich; Statutory and court rule interpretation; Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights; In re Contempt of Henry; Use of the alternative term "or"; Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stenberg Bros., Inc.; Applicability of MCR 2.110 and 2.113; MCR 3.700 et seq.


Holding that the plaintiff complied with the statute and court rules governing PPOs, the court affirmed the trial court's entry of an ex parte PPO against the defendant. The PPO prohibited defendant from contacting or threatening plaintiff. Defendant, proceeding in propria persona, asserted that plaintiff did not comply with the statute and court rules governing PPOs, pleadings, and affidavits, and that plaintiff committed perjury by failing to provide testimony or corroborating evidence in support. The court disagreed, noting that plaintiff "filed a written petition with an attachment alleging specific and repeated acts of harassment and racial slurs at his place of employment in compliance with MCL 600.2950a(12) and MCR 7.305(A)(2)." He was "not required to also produce an affidavit or sworn testimony because the statute and court rule use the alternative term 'or' indicating a choice between two or more things." Further, defendant's reliance on MCR 2.110 and MCR 2.113 was inappropriate because the specific court rules of MCR 3.700 et seq. controlled. "Plaintiff was not required to provide corroborating evidence or testify in support of his petition." Thus, defendant was not entitled to appellate relief.

Full Text Opinion