e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 58925
Opinion Date : 12/18/2014
e-Journal Date : 01/29/2015
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Hackett-Mayer v. Mayer
Practice Area(s) : Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – O’Connell, Borrello, and Gleicher
Full Text Opinion
Issues:

Motion to terminate a personal protection order (PPO); B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Mead v. Batchlor; The Law Enforcement Information Network; MCL 600.2950(16) & (17); MCL 600.2950(19) & (20); Hayford v. Hayford; MCL 600.2950(4); MCL 600.2950(1)(g); The catchall provision (MCL 600.2950(1)(j)); MCL 600.2950(4)(a)

Summary

Based on the testimony, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent-ex-husband's motion to terminate the PPO because the trial court had reasonable cause to believe that he interfered with the petitioner-ex-wife at her place of employment and engaged in conduct that caused her "to experience a reasonable apprehension of violence." Thus, it affirmed the trial court's order denying respondent's motion to terminate the PPO issued against him at the request of petitioner. Respondent argued that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not have reasonable cause to believe that he committed one of the acts described in MCL 600.2950(1). The parties divorced in 2007. They shared joint physical and legal custody of the children. Their post-divorce relationship appeared to have been contentious. In 4/13, petitioner received a number of text messages from respondent. The text messages that were admitted into evidence also included numerous declarations from respondent that "petitioner was a bully and that she needed to stop abusing children." They were apparently sent before and after a 4/13 incident at petitioner's workplace. The testimony established that respondent called petitioner and left a voicemail on her phone before showing up at her workplace. He agreed that when he arrived he "launched into an extremely hostile tirade," but he maintained that he did not threaten anyone. Petitioner testified that when respondent arrived he "'slammed his hands' onto the sign-in counter, sending pencils flying and disrupted everything that was on the counter." She said that he started saying "let's go, come on, let's go, let's go find these bullies, Ingrid, come on, let's go." She added that he was "screaming at the top of his lungs." She said that she was "very afraid and asked him to leave, but he 'kept going on and on'" about finding the bullies. Petitioner's co-worker described respondent as "very hostile" and said he was "yelling" at petitioner. She said it was a "'bit eerie' because respondent had a laser focus on petitioner." She said that she was "scared and frightened by his conduct." Petitioner "crouched behind" her co-worker and "called the police, but respondent left before they arrived." She said that respondent left a second voicemail on her phone after he left. "Both voicemails were played on the record, but were not transcribed." However, respondent candidly described at least one of the voicemails as a "volcanic . . . watered down version of Alec Baldwin's infamous voice message." One of the responding police officers testified that petitioner and her co-worker were "upset, frightened, and emotionally agitated when he arrived; however, the officer said that they told him respondent did not make any verbal threats."

Full Text Opinion