Motion to terminate an ex parte domestic PPO; MCL 600.2950(1)

The court reversed the trial court’s order denying respondent’s motion to terminate an ex parte PPO entered in favor of petitioner, vacated the PPO, and remanded for entry of an order granting the motion. “The trial court did not make a positive finding of prohibited behavior by respondent before issuing the PPO, and petitioner did not establish justification for continuing the PPO upon respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.” Thus, the record was “insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden to justify continuation of the PPO.” Also, the court held that the evidence petitioner presented “was insufficient to support a finding of reasonable cause to believe that respondent might in the future commit an act prohibited under MCL 600.2950(1).” The court noted that the “only alleged prohibited conduct by respondent was his alleged statement that he would harm himself.” The only support for this allegation was “petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony that he made this statement.” The court noted that the “trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and we do not weigh the credibility of the witnesses on appeal.” However, in this case “the trial court found both petitioner and respondent credible, found the case to be a close call, but nonetheless chose to defer to the uncorroborated version of events presented by petitioner, who admitted that she did not remember if she was using marijuana on the day of the events in question.” Although the court did “not second-guess the trial court’s finding that petitioner experienced fear, her fear alone is not sufficient to meet petitioner’s burden to justify continuation of the PPO. Nor did petitioner demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that respondent may commit an act prohibited under MCL 600.2950(1) in the future.” Thus, the court found that “the trial court abused its discretion by denying respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.”