Request for a PPO under MCL 600.2950a(1); Stalking; MCL 750.411h(1)(d); “Course of conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); Harassment; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); “Unconsented contact”; MCL 750.411h(1)(e)

Holding that neither the referee nor the trial court made sufficient factual findings on the record for the court to review their continuance of the PPO, the court vacated and remanded. Petitioner, who is dating respondent’s ex-wife, sought an ex parte PPO against respondent, claiming he “assaulted him, made threats against him, and interfered with his business.” The trial court granted his request “by checking the prepared options on the motion form and without identifying any particular ‘acts of willful, unconsented contact’ in the space provided on the form.” The referee denied respondent’s motion to terminate or modify the PPO, and the trial court affirmed. On appeal, the court noted that the referee and the trial court “continued the PPO without resolving the credibility dispute between the parties and without making sufficient factual findings of record for” its review. While “the parties were present at the court hearing, they were not sworn in and their statements were argument, not evidence. Absent testimony and the police report regarding [a] roadside incident, no evidence supported that an unconsented contact occurred.” Rather, the record consisted “of bare allegations contained in a petition, and no factual findings by a judicial officer.” The court also found that the referee “erred by relying on [respondent’s] emails to the township supervisor to establish a second instance of stalking under MCL 750.411h. . . . The referee looked no further than to the emails to find that respondent targeted petitioner. However, there was no conduct directed toward petitioner. The emails were sent to the township supervisor, not petitioner.” The emails also did not constitute “unconsented contact” under MCL 750.411(1)(e). As the record now stood, it appeared that both parties “presented a slew of unsupported allegations and accusations.” The court was “highly skeptical that even with the benefit of testimony petitioner will be able to establish ‘stalking’ as the term is statutorily defined. In any case, evidence must be presented and sworn testimony received to determine whether” he was entitled to a PPO.