Nondomestic PPO; Stalking; “Course of conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); “Harassment”; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); “Unconsented conduct”; MCL 750.411h(1)(e)

Concluding the trial court did not err when it found that petitioner presented sufficient evidence that respondent engaged in a course of conduct that constituted stalking behavior, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying respondent's motion to terminate a PPO. The parties are neighbors in a rural subdivision. “Respondent is a 72-year old man who—because of ongoing issues with individuals driving too fast on the dirt road near his home—has submitted complaints with the board of his homeowner’s association regarding issues with posted speed limit signs and deed restrictions. Petitioner is a 16-year old boy who has driven his four-wheeler on the dirt road near respondent’s home.” The court noted that he “filed a petition for a nondomestic ex parte PPO under MCL 600.2950a(1) based on three incidents that occurred with respondent in 2020 and 2021." The trial court granted it, and respondent unsuccessfully moved to terminate it. The court determined that deciding the motion required the trial “court to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. This Court gives great deference to trial courts’ credibility assessments.” In assessing the testimony, the trial court determined that respondent was the less credible of the two. It found that “respondent’s blatant denials did not sufficiently rebut petitioner’s testimony.” It further found that “it was more likely than not that the events occurred in the manner described by petitioner given that respondent was already upset with the association board because of the four-wheelers traveling past his house every day.” The trial court “considered respondent’s testimony that his medical condition prevented his mobility; however, the court concluded that ‘notwithstanding those medical conditions, I find credibility in [petitioner’s] assertion that he’s in need of protection.’” The court would “not disturb the trial court’s finding that respondent engaged in a course of stalking behavior by threatening to slash petitioner’s tires and ‘bash in’ his face and by causing petitioner to believe that he was hit in the face with a rock.”