Trial Court Erred By Not Stating ‘Specific Reasons’ For Denying PPO

A trial court did not comply with the statutory requirements for denying an ex parte personal protection order (PPO) by “merely concluding” that the allegations were “insufficient” for relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In PC v JLS (Docket No. 361161), tensions arose between the petitioner and the respondent regarding the petitioner’s role as the foster parent of a dog. The dog was given to the petitioner by Michigan Animal Crew (MAC), a Detroit-area animal rescue organization over which the respondent apparently “has some level of control or ownership.”

The petitioner filed for a nondomestic PPO under MCL 600.2950a in Wayne County Circuit Court. She alleged, among other things, the respondent told her more than once, “I am going to ruin and destroy you” and also “began appearing at her house frequently.” The petitioner claimed the respondent’s harassing behavior caused her to suffer from anxiety, for which she was taking medication. The trial court denied the PPO without conducting a hearing and simply said in a one-page order, “Insufficient allegations for ex parte relief.”

The Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded the case, finding the trial court did not comply with MCL 600.2950a(7). This section of the PPO statute says: “If a court issues or refuses to issue a personal protection order, the court shall immediately state in writing the specific reasons for issuing or refusing to issue the personal protection order. If a hearing is held, the court shall also immediately state on the record the specific reasons for issuing or refusing to issue a personal protection order.”

The Court of Appeals, in a published and binding opinion, emphasized that the trial court did not hold a hearing on the petition and offered no written reasons for denying the PPO. “Because the trial court failed to state its specific reasons for refusing to issue the PPO, we have no evidence that the ‘trial court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law.’ … In this case, the one-sentence order from the trial court that the allegations were ‘insufficient’ is not adequate for appellate review.”

Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Christopher M. Murray and Judge Brock A. Swartzle.

Background

According to the petition, the parties initially contacted each other in May 2021 via social media when the respondent asked the petitioner to call her about fostering a puggle mix. During that conversation, the petitioner alleged the respondent “made a point of telling [the petitioner] she had her law degree and mentioned she was able to sue people and had.”

The petitioner asserted that although the dog she agreed to foster, named Joy, was not the puggle mix she expected but instead was a pit bull mix, she still took the dog into foster care. However, about a month later, the petitioner said she declined the respondent’s request to foster another dog because she did not think the dog would be a good fit in her home and would put her over the legal number of allowed animals. The petitioner alleged the respondent “became enraged” at this decision and told the petitioner that she was going to “take back” Joy.

In June 2021, the petitioner took Joy to the veterinarian for spaying. The petitioner claimed she was told by the vet that Joy needed $444 in additional medical care because of a leg amputation and a previous opioid overdose. The petitioner claimed she paid for the vet care and, when she told the respondent about it, the respondent “went berserk” and said that she “wanted more money for Joy.”

The petitioner further alleged that, in August 2021, she received an anonymous phone call from a female who said the petitioner had a “civil court case in Marine City” and then hung up. When the petitioner called the court, she was told the respondent had filed a civil complaint against her regarding ownership of Joy. When the petitioner appeared at a hearing in the case, she claimed the respondent sat in the row directly in front of her and said, “I am going to ruin and destroy you.”

Upon returning to her house after the court hearing, the petitioner alleged the following happened: “Suddenly we saw [the respondent] driving very slowly up and down my street at least 6 or 7 times. She was screaming out the window ‘I’m going to ruin you and destroy you[.]’ She was always waving her arm around and was filming us. We were all in utter shock and total disbelief. My neighbor … yelled at her to leave and that it was private property.” The petitioner called the police and an officer took statements. The officer’s report noted the respondent’s side of the incident, indicating the respondent said she went to the petitioner’s home to “verify the dog was there and to get photos of it. …” The respondent told the officer “she had no reason to go back and [was] not going to contact [the petitioner] further.”

A few months later, the petitioner alleged that her neighbor’s 10-year-old child approached her “terrified and shaking,” saying that she had photographs of the respondent in the petitioner’s driveway showing the respondent videotaping the petitioner’s house. The photos showed a woman in a car holding a cell phone in a manner consistent with taking a video. The neighbor’s signed statement corroborating the petitioner’s story was included with the PPO petition. The petitioner further alleged the respondent began appearing at her house “frequently” and photos of a woman doing this were attached to the PPO petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent “would stop in the park across the street sometimes for hours. She would park down the street. She would drive by and take pictures. One time she parked in the driveway of my neighbor and was taking pictures.” The petitioner further asserted that, on March 1, 2022, the respondent and another person “threw eggs” at her house after the respondent complained to the petitioner’s attorney that the petitioner “called animal control on her.”

In April 2022, the petitioner filed a nondomestic PPO petition in the Wayne County trial court, claiming the respondent’s conduct caused her to suffer from anxiety. On April 7, 2022, the trial court denied the petition without a hearing and stated in a one-page order: “Insufficient allegations for ex parte relief.”

The petitioner appealed.

‘Specific Reasons’ Must Be Given

On appeal, the petitioner argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition because the alleged facts and evidence supported granting a nondomestic PPO.

“Perhaps they do,” the Court of Appeals said. “[B]ut we do not reach that question today. Instead, we are faced with the question of whether the trial court’s conclusory determination that the allegations are ‘insufficient’ for ex parte relief is adequate for appellate review. The answer to that question is simple: it is not.”

The Court of Appeals explained that, under MCL 600.2950a(1), the petitioner had to demonstrate the respondent engaged in behavior that constituted stalking. In order to show that stalking occurred, “[t]here must be evidence of two or more acts of unconsented contact that caused the victim to suffer emotional distress and that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress,” the appeals court said.

Meanwhile, MCL 600.2950a(7) provides, “If a court issues or refuses to issue a personal protection order, the court shall immediately state in writing the specific reasons for issuing or refusing to issue the personal protection order,” the Court of Appeals observed. “Likewise, MCR 3.705(A)(5) requires that if the trial court denies the petition, ‘it shall state the reasons in writing’ .…”

Here, the trial court did not conduct a hearing and issued an order denying the PPO that merely stated the allegations were “insufficient,” the Court of Appeals noted. “Without any findings of fact or any conclusions of law based on those facts from the trial court, we are unable to discern which threshold or requirement petitioner failed to satisfy. The statute requires the trial court to state the ‘specific reasons’ for denying the petition, MCL 600.2950a(7), and an explanation more detailed than simply ‘insufficient’ is needed to satisfy the statute and aid appellate review.”

According to the Court of Appeals, the petitioner was required to demonstrate that she was the victim of stalking or harassment, which required the petitioner to show that she was subject to “unconsented contact” on two or more occasions leading to “emotional distress.” The appeals court said that, based on its review of the record, the petitioner alleged and supported with documentary evidence “that she was subjected to multiple instances of unconsented contact between August 2021 and April 2022. The allegations of unconsented contact were coupled with allegations and evidence of threats made by respondent that she would take Joy away from petitioner and that she would ‘ruin’ and ‘destroy’ petitioner.”

Because there was no hearing and no written reasons for denial were given in the trial court order, the Court of Appeals said there was no evidence the trial court knew of the issues in the case or correctly applied the law. As a result, the appeals court held that the one-sentence trial court order finding the petitioner’s allegations were “insufficient” was not adequate for appellate review.

“Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case to the trial court for compliance with MCL 600.2950a(7) and MCR 3.705(A)(5),” the Court of Appeals concluded.