JLS v HRS

• Opinion published September 12, 2024 (Patel, P.J., and Yates and Shapiro, JJ)

• Opinion Authored by Judge Yates

• COA Docket 368375

• Clinton County Circuit Court

• Trial Judge: Cori Barkman

• Respondent’s Trial Attorney: Laura Nieusma, Your Path Family Law

• Respondent’s Appellate Counsel: Lisa Schmidt, Speaker Law Firm

Holding: The Trial Court violated Respondent-Husband’s constitutional rights to due process when, after granting an ex parte PPO, the court denied Respondent an opportunity to present evidence in support of his motion to terminate the PPO. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Facts: This is a divorce-related PPO case in which the Petitioner-Wife sought a PPO against her Respondent-Husband. Petitioner-Wife filed for divorce. The parties have been married for 19 years and had 7 children together. One week after the divorce filing, Petitioner-Wife sought an ex parte PPO, asserting claims from throughout the marriage. The trial court granted the ex parte PPO, which set forth several prohibitions, including that it prohibited Respondent-Husband from “entering onto property” where she lives, from interfering with her efforts to move herself or her belongings out of the marital home, and from “intentionally causing petitioner mental distress or exerting control over petitioner.”

Respondent-Husband filed a motion to terminate the PPO, in which he contested most of Petitioner-Wife’s factual allegations. At the PPO hearing, which was also combined with a discovery hearing in the divorce case, the trial court relied on the allegations made in the Petitioner-Wife’s PPO request, and also relied on Petitioner-Wife’s testimony at that hearing. The Petitioner also presented testimony from other witnesses at the hearing. Respondent asked to present witnesses, but the Trial Court declined due to “docket congestion.” While Respondent’s attorney did not believe that Petitioner-Wife presented sufficient proof to keep the PPO in place, counsel did want to present witnesses for Respondent-Husband. Rather than allowing the hearing to proceed, or scheduling a continued session at a later date, the Trial Court ruled that the PPO would remain in effect and denied Respondent-Husband’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Key Appellate Rulings

The Trial Court correctly granted the issuance of the Ex Parte PPO

The Petitioner-Wife met her burden of obtaining the ex parte PPO based on the 17 pages of allegations she submitted to the trial court. For example, she alleged that Respondent-Husband had a “long history of controlling behavior” and she also asserted that he engaged in “persistent oversight [of her] at work,” which she equated to stalking. Although the couple worked at the same place, and Respondent-Husband’s conduct could be seen as merely jobsite supervision, the allegations were sufficient to satisfy the categories of impermissible acts for the initial issuance of the PPO.

The Trial Court violated Respondent-Husband’s right to procedural due process when it would not allow Respondent-Husband to present any evidence to counter the PPO.

When the Respondent-Husband filed a motion to terminate the PPO, the Petitioner-Wife was obligated to establish a "justification for the continuance” of the PPO. The Respondent-Husband was entitled to a hearing after he filed his motion to terminate the PPO. MCR 3.707(A)(2). While the trial court did hold a hearing, Respondent-Husband’s rights were violated because the Trial court did not allow him to testify or to present his own witnesses. The Court of Appeals observed that the “promise of a hearing” in the court rule “is empty if the respondent does not receive ‘a meaningful opportunity to challenge the merits of the …PPO.” This would, at least, allow the respondent an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented by the petitioner. The hearing that occurred in this case was a “one-sided process” that “contravened respondent’s constitutional right to procedural due process.”