MCL 600.2950(1)(j) (referencing MCL 750.411h); “Stalking”; MCL 750.411h(1)(d); “Course of conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); “Harassment”; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); Reasonable cause; MCL 600.2950(4); MCL 600.2950(1)(a)- (l); MCL 600.2950(4)(a) & (b); Res judicata

Holding that res judicata did not bar the circuit court from considering five earlier incidents that were included in a prior unsuccessful PPO petition where petitioner added a sixth, subsequent incident in this petition, the court reversed the denial of this petition and remanded to the circuit court to again adjudicate the PPO petition, taking into consideration the five earlier incidents and any other pertinent history between the parties. Respondent was petitioner’s ex-husband. She argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition or involuntary dismissal on the basis of res judicata as to the initial five incidents referenced in the current PPO petition. The court held that “had petitioner sought a PPO on the basis of the same five incidents that were presented to the Macomb circuit court and nothing more, then the doctrine of res judicata would plainly have applied and precluded petitioner from obtaining a PPO. Petitioner, however, alleged a sixth incident that had not been, and could not have been, alleged in the Macomb circuit court.” And the new allegations as to the sixth incident, in the court’s view, “opened the door for consideration of the prior five incidents in conjunction with the sixth incident. The sixth incident drove petitioner to again seek the assistance of a court in an effort to obtain a PPO against respondent. And the sixth incident could not be viewed in isolation or a vacuum; rather, the pattern of conduct between and involving the parties, including the first five incidents, had to be examined in its entirety. The earlier incidents could give explanation or context to the sixth incident by providing insight on intent, continuity of purpose, the reasonableness of beliefs, and states of mind or feelings relative to terror, fright, intimidation, threats, harassment, and molestation.” The court recognized that “the transactions raised in the first PPO suit overlapped with all but one of the transactions raised in” this one. But were it to rule that res judicata barred “consideration of the first five incidents in relation to whether a PPO should be issued predicated on stalking activity, we would effectively be subverting the intent of the Legislature in enacting MCL 600.2950.” The court concluded the “circuit court needs to have the ability to examine and consider the totality of the circumstances when ruling on a PPO petition. The past history of the parties is a necessary consideration when evaluating whether a PPO should be issued.”