Entry of an ex parte PPO; MCL 600.2950(1)(b), (g), & (l); Motion to terminate; Procedural due process; The “opportunity to be heard”; Peterson v Peterson (Unpub)

While the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the ex parte PPO in question, it held that respondent’s procedural due process rights were violated by a “one-sided hearing” on his motion to terminate the PPO. Thus, it reversed the order denying his motion and remanded for a new hearing. The parties were married. After moving out of the marital home and filing for divorce, petitioner obtained the PPO. Respondent first argued on appeal that the trial court erred in issuing the PPO. The court noted MCL 600.2950 governs the issuance of a PPO in the context of a domestic relationship. “Impermissible acts listed in MCL 600.2950(1) include ‘molesting’ the petitioner” (MCL 600.2950(1)(b)), “‘interfering with petitioner at petitioner’s place of employment . . . or engaging in conduct that impairs petitioner’s employment’” (MCL 600.2950(1)(g)), “and engaging in ‘[a]ny other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence’” (MCL 600.2950(1)(l). The court found that the petition for an ex parte PPO contained “allegations that could satisfy all three categories of impermissible acts.” As to respondent’s due process argument, the court considered “the meaning of ‘the opportunity to be heard’ in the context of motions to terminate ex parte PPOs that actually involve hearings.” After reviewing an unpublished case, Peterson, the court held that “due process necessarily mandates an opportunity for the respondent to present evidence at a hearing to terminate a PPO. In this case, the trial court devoted a portion of a 70-minute hearing to respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO, but [it] allowed only petitioner to present evidence in the form of testimony from herself and two of her relatives. After [she] finished testifying, the trial court heard arguments from [her] counsel and denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO based on the materials attached to the ex parte petition and the testimony of petitioner’s witnesses. When respondent’s attorney asked the trial court ‘when will we be allowed to present witnesses?’ the trial court simply stated that ‘you made a motion and I’m denying it.’ That one-sided process contravened respondent’s constitutional right to procedural due process.”