Motion to terminate an ex parte nondomestic PPO; MCL 600.2950a(1); MCL 750.411h (stalking); MCL 750.411i (aggravated stalking); MCL 750.411s (online stalking); Service of the motion to terminate; MCR 2.119(C); Due process

The court concluded that (1) petitioner was not entitled to relief on due-process grounds and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting respondent’s motion to terminate the ex parte nondomestic PPO. Petitioner asserted “that respondent’s ‘falsified service’ and her failure to properly serve petitioner with” the motion to terminate constituted a violation of her due-process rights. While the court found that it was clear “respondent failed to abide by the notice provisions iterated under MCR 2.119(C)(1)(a), as she did not serve a copy of her subject motion on petitioner within the pertinent timeframe[,]” it disagreed with petitioner’s claim that she was denied due process as a result. “After the parties reviewed the pertinent documents during the motion hearing, the trial court” asked petitioner if she was prepared to proceed to show why she needed a PPO. She “responded affirmatively. The parties continued to testify and present their respective proofs before the trial court issued its ruling. Petitioner was present during the motion hearing, she advanced testimony regarding her alleged need for the continued institution of the PPO, offered evidence of respondent’s alleged improper conduct, and contested respondent’s arguments.” Thus, the court determined that her procedural due process rights were not violated. It added that, when she was provided “the opportunity to postpone the hearing as a result of the defects in service, petitioner opted to proceed.” She had notice of the hearing, “the opportunity to be heard at the hearing, and her subsequent challenges were addressed by the trial court.” As to the trial court’s decision to grant the motion, it “did not rely on the allegedly fabricated proofs presented by respondent when reaching its decision; rather, [it] determined petitioner failed to allege, and [it] failed to find, two or more separate and noncontinuous acts as required by the stalking statute to justify maintaining the PPO.” Affirmed.