Background
WS and her husband lived in a condominium community where SS owned rental units and served as homeowners association president. WS alleged that SS tried to pressure her husband on board matters, threatened to make life difficult for the couple, repeatedly appeared near her home, contacted her by email, and threatened to disclose damaging information about her. In November 2024, the Wayne Circuit Court entered an ex parte stalking-type personal protection order prohibiting SS from contacting WS, entering her property, or appearing at her residence or within her sight.
SS moved to terminate the PPO and disputed WS’s allegations. At the July 2025 hearing, WS testified that SS continued driving by her home and pursuing contact even after the PPO was entered and after a receiver assumed authority over the condominium community. The trial court found SS argumentative and not credible, concluded that his continued presence and contacts lacked a legitimate explanation, and denied his motion. SS appealed, also arguing that the remote hearing violated due process because the court did not provide hearing-assistance devices.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that the appeal was not moot even though the PPO expired on November 18, 2025, because a ruling that the PPO was improperly issued could result in its designation as rescinded in the Law Enforcement Information Network.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that WS established justification to continue the PPO. Evidence showed that SS continued attempting to contact WS despite the PPO and the receivership, and his threatening emails lacked a reasonable explanation. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determination that SS was argumentative and evasive.
The court also rejected SS’s due-process claim. When SS disclosed during the Zoom hearing that his hearing aids were confusing him, the trial court directed him to signal if he could not hear, asked the other participants to speak louder, and offered to reconvene in person with hearing assistance if necessary. SS said he understood, did not report further difficulty, and participated in the hearing through counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Expiration of a PPO does not moot an appeal when the appellant seeks to have the order identified as rescinded in the Law Enforcement Information Network.
- A petitioner opposing termination of a PPO must establish justification for its continuation, and the trial court may rely on post-order conduct and witness credibility in deciding whether that burden is met.
- No due-process violation occurred where the court responded to a disclosed hearing impairment with accommodations, the respondent indicated they were adequate, and neither he nor counsel requested further assistance.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts may preserve a stalking-type PPO based on continued unwanted conduct, threats, and credibility findings even when the respondent characterizes the contacts as related to association business. It also confirms that an expired PPO remains reviewable because its law-enforcement record can carry continuing consequences.
For remote proceedings, the ruling underscores that a litigant who experiences difficulty hearing should promptly alert the court and request additional assistance. A due-process challenge is unlikely to succeed when the court offers accommodations, the litigant accepts them, and the record shows no further reported difficulty.