PC v. JLS

1

PC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JLS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 361161

Court of Appeals of Michigan

April 6, 2023

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 22-104132-PH

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and SWARTZLE, JJ.

K. F KELLY, P.J.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether a trial court complies with the statutory requirements of MCL 600.2950a when denying a petition for an ex parte personal protection order (PPO) in a nondomestic relationship by merely concluding that the allegations are "insufficient" for ex parte relief. We find that it does not. Moreover, because it failed to state the specific reasons to either refuse or issue the PPO we are unable to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion when denying the petition; MCL 600.2950a(7) requires the court to "state in writing the specific reasons for issuing or refusing to issue the personal protection order." Therefore, we vacate the trial court's order and remand this case to the trial court for compliance with the requirements of MCL 600.2950a(7); in particular, for the trial court to state in writing the specific reasons for denying, or in the alternative, granting the petition.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Because the trial court denied the petition without holding a hearing^[1], we are constrained to accept the factual allegations, as well as the documentary evidence, petitioner included with the petition. As alleged, the conflict between the parties stems from tension over petitioner's role as an animal foster parent of a dog given to her by Michigan Animal Crew (MAC), an organization over which respondent appears to have some level of control or ownership. The parties first contacted each other on May 1, 2021, after respondent responded to a post made by petitioner on MAC's Facebook page. According to petitioner, respondent asked petitioner to call her and the parties discussed fostering a "puggle mix." During the conversation, respondent also "made a point of telling [petitioner] she had her law degree and mentioned she was able to sue people and had."

Petitioner claimed that when she arrived to meet the new dog, it was not the puggle mix she was expecting, but instead was "Joy," a three-legged Staffordshire Pitbull mix. Regardless of the apparent miscommunication, petitioner took Joy, as well as toys, food, and expired antidiarrhea medication. About a month later, petitioner declined respondent's request to foster another dog named "Gus." According to petitioner, she declined the request because she did not think Gus would be a good fit in her home and would put her over the legal number of allowed animals. But after she informed respondent of her decision, respondent "became enraged" and told petitioner she was going to take back Joy.

In June 2021, petitioner took Joy to the veterinarian to be spayed. While at the clinic, petitioner learned that Joy needed $444 in extra medical care because of the amputation to the leg and a previous opioid overdose. Petitioner paid for the care and, when she informed respondent of the expense, respondent "went berserk" and told petitioner she "wanted more money for Joy."

In August 2021, petitioner claimed she received an anonymous phone call from a female caller who stated petitioner had a "civil court case in Marine City" and then hung up. After petitioner called the court to inquire, the clerk informed her of a civil complaint filed against her by respondent regarding ownership of Joy. When petitioner appeared on September 13, 2021, for a hearing regarding the case, petitioner alleged respondent sat in the row directly in front of her and said, "I am going to ruin and destroy you." After the hearing, petitioner returned to her house, at which point she alleged:

Suddenly we saw [respondent] driving very slowly up and down my street at least 6 or 7 times. She was screaming out the window "I'm going to ruin you and destroy you[.]" She was always waving her arm around and was filming us. We were all in utter shock and total disbelief. My neighbor . . . yelled at her to leave and that it was private property.

Petitioner called the police to report the incident, and an officer came and took statements from the parties, although petitioner claimed the officer incorrectly noted in the report that she did not want to pursue charges for harassment. The officer's report noted respondent's side of the incident, stating said respondent went to petitioner's residence to "verify the dog was there and to get photos of it ...." Respondent told the officer "she had no reason to go back and is not going to contact [petitioner] further."

In October 2021, petitioner alleged that her neighbor's 10-year-old child approached her "terrified and shaking" and said she had photographs of respondent in petitioner's driveway depicting respondent filming her house. Petitioner attached to her petition photographs purporting to be those taken by the neighbor's child and which show various shots of a woman in a car holding a cellular telephone in a manner consistent with someone using the phone to film. The neighbor provided a signed statement corroborating petitioner's story about the photographs, which petitioner also included with her petition.

Petitioner also alleged that respondent subsequently began appearing at her house frequently. Petitioner took photographs of a woman who she claimed was respondent doing this, which she also attached to her petition. Petitioner alleged respondent: "would stop in the park across the street sometimes for hours. She would park down the street. She would drive by and take pictures. One time she parked in the driveway of my neighbor and was taking pictures." According to petitioner, on March 1, 2022, respondent and another individual also threw eggs at petitioner's house after respondent complained to petitioner's attorney that petitioner "called animal control on her." Ultimately, petitioner alleged that respondent's conduct caused her to suffer from anxiety for which her doctor was treating her with medication.

On April 6, 2022, petitioner filed her petition for nondomestic PPO with the trial court. On April 7, 2022, in a one-page order, the trial court denied petitioner's petition without a hearing stating only: "Insufficient allegations for ex parte relief." This appeal followed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a trial court's decision whether to issue a PPO for an abuse of discretion. In re JCB, 336 Mich.App. 736, 745; 971 N.W.2d 705 (2021). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision resulted in an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it misapprehends or misapplies the law. Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 499 Mich. 544, 552; 886 N.W.2d 113 (2016). The proper interpretation of statutes and court rules are questions of law reviewed de novo. Lamkin v Engram, 295 Mich.App. 701, 707; 815 N.W.2d 793 (2012).

III. ANALYSIS

Petitioner claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied petitioner's petition for nondomestic PPO because the facts as alleged, and the evidence supporting those allegations, supported granting the PPO. Perhaps they do, but we do not reach that question today. Instead, we are faced with the question of whether the trial court's conclusory determination that the allegations are "insufficient" for ex parte relief is adequate for appellate review. The answer to that question is simple: it is not.

Petitioner filed a petition for a nondomestic PPO pursuant to MCL 600.2950a, which requires the petitioner to allege "facts that constitute stalking as defined in section 411h or 411i, or conduct that is prohibited under section 411s, of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411h, 750.411i, and 750.411s, for the alleged violation." MCL 600.2950a(1). "Stalking" is defined as "a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested." MCL 750.411h(1)(d) (emphasis added). "Course of conduct," in turn, is defined as "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose." MCL 750.411h(1)(a).

"Harassment" is defined in pertinent part as "conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress." MCL 750.411h(1)(c) (emphasis added). "Unconsented contact" is "any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without that individual's consent or in disregard of that individual's expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued." MCL 750.411h(1)(e). "Unconsented contact" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:

(i) Following or appearing within the sight of that individual.

(ii) Approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private property.

(iii) Appearing at that individual's workplace or residence,

(iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual.

(v) Contacting that individual by telephone.

(vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual.

(vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual.

[MCL 750.411h(1)(e).]

Under MCL 600.2950a(1), petitioner must demonstrate that respo...