Ex parte PPO involving a former spouse; MCL 600.2950(1), (4), & (12); MCR 3.705(A)(2), (B)(1), & (B)(6); Hayford v. Hayford; Motion to set aside a PPO or an extension of a PPO under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a), (e), & (f); Abandonment of an argument on appeal; Berger v. Berger; Motion to terminate a PPO; MCR 3.707(A)(1)(b) & (c); Patterson v. Beverwyk; Service; MCR 2.105(A)(2); Amendment of judgment; MCR 2.611(A)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying respondent-ex-husband’s motion to terminate an ex parte PPO issued to petitioner-ex-wife, or by issuing and extending the PPO. On appeal, the court first rejected his argument that the trial court erred by issuing the PPO. “While respondent claims that petitioner was not credible, the trial court properly considered petitioner’s statements in support of the petition and did not abuse its discretion by finding reasonable cause to believe that respondent might commit one of the prohibited acts. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would result from the delay required to give notice to respondent.” Further, a hearing was not required because petitioner requested an ex parte order. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by extending the PPO. “[T]he trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the evidence petitioner submitted was sufficient to continue the PPO when she alleged that respondent was continuing to contact and harass her in violation of the PPO.” Moreover, the trial court explained that the extensions “were ‘bridge extensions’” and that it was “standard procedure to issue ‘bridge’ PPOs until [it] had an opportunity to hear from the parties.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred by denying his motion to terminate the PPO. Although the trial court erred by finding he failed to file a notice of hearing for the motion, it still properly denied it. “Because the motion was not filed within 14 days after respondent was served with the PPO or received actual notice of the PPO,” he was required to show good cause. However, his motion “did not allege or discuss good cause and therefore it was properly denied.” Affirmed.