Ex parte PPO in the context of domestic relationships; MCL 600.2950; Continuation of the PPO; Burden of proof

The court held that the trial court erred in placing the burden on respondent-MD to show why the ex parte PPO should be terminated rather than requiring petitioner-KO to meet her legal burden to justify its continuation. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s order denying MD’s motion to terminate the ex parte PPO, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing in which the trial court shall place the burden of proof on KO as to whether the PPO should be continued. “The parties had once been friends and in a dating relationship.” MD first argued on appeal that the trial court erred in entering the PPO on an ex parte basis. But contrary to his assertions that KO “alleged nothing more than unsolicited contacts from respondent, the documents attached to the petition, including an affidavit, plainly contained allegations of an incident in which respondent pointed a gun at petitioner, interfered with her attempts to make a phone call, grabbed her wrist, and then shoved her.” Thus, the trial court had a reasonable basis for issuing an ex parte PPO. Respondent also challenged “the trial court’s decision to continue the PPO after the hearing, arguing (1) that the hearing did not comport with due process and (2) that the evidence did not support continuation of the PPO.” The court held that reversal was warranted on this issue. The record showed that “there were fact questions surrounding the events at issue—most notably, the incident involving the gun—and that there were issues of credibility that warranted an evidentiary hearing to assess” the parties’ respective demeanors. In this context, the court concluded that “it was improper for the trial court to make a one-sided assessment of respondent’s credibility on the basis of his argument, essentially unsworn testimony, at the hearing and to simply accept as true petitioner’s allegations without evaluating her credibility and demeanor, particularly when the burden of justifying the continuation of the PPO was on petitioner. Instead, given the existence of a factual dispute, an evidentiary hearing was warranted for both parties to testify under oath and to offer other evidence as relevant to support their positions, so as to enable an assessment of their respective credibility by the” trial court.