e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 57564
Opinion Date : 07/01/2014
e-Journal Date : 08/06/2014
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Lipscomb v. Moran
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Murray and Shapiro; Dissent - Jansen
Full Text Opinion

PPOs; Burden of proof; MCL 600.2950a; Lamkin v. Engram; Hayford v. Hayford; Kampf v. Kampf; Issuance of PPOs in nondomestic circumstances; MCL 600.2950a(1); "Stalking"; MCL 750.411h; Nastal v. Henderson & Assoc. Investigations, Inc.; People v. White


The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for a PPO because there was insufficient evidence to justify the issuance of a PPO based on the evidence she presented at the hearing. She sought the PPO against the respondent based on two admitted encounters and two phone calls allegedly placed by respondent to petitioner. The trial court found that "[r]espondent has not committed two or more acts of willful, unconsented contact," and thus, denied the issuance of the requested PPO because the evidence "does not meet the statutory basis." On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court that "by any reasonable measure both instances of respondent's interaction with petitioner . . . were innocuous" and there was no evidence that the interactions were "initiated or continued . . . in disregard of the [petitioner's] desire to discontinue the contact." It found that respondent's mention to petitioner that "he [knew] of [her] meeting with" another professor and question about "how things were going in that particular course," are not the kind of statements that "would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, threatened, or harassed, and would cause a reasonable person in the victim's position to suffer emotional distress." The court also agreed with the trial court's ruling that petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that it was respondent who made the phone calls. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion