Opinion
No. 302682
05-17-2012
PHILLIP SOLOM, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MICHELLE YUHASEY, Respondent-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Dickinson Circuit Court
LC No. 11-016452-PH
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and BECKERING and M. J. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent Michelle Yuhasey appeals by right the trial court's order denying her motion to terminate the personal protection order (PPO) issued to petitioner Phillip Solom. Petitioner requested an ex parte PPO on January 13, 2011, which the court signed into effect the next day. Respondent moved to terminate the order. After a hearing, the court denied respondent's motion and continued the PPO. The PPO was scheduled to remain in effect until January 14, 2012. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
"As a general rule, an appellate court will not decide moot issues." B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d 117 (1998). "An issue is deemed moot when an event occurs that renders it impossible for a reviewing court to grant relief." Id. However, an issue "is not moot if it will continue to affect a party in some collateral way." People v Cathey, 261 Mich App 506, 510; 681 NW2d 661 (2004); see also Hayford v Hayford, 279 Mich App 324, 325; 760 NW2d 503 (2008).
Here, while this case was pending on appeal, the PPO at issue expired by its own terms.Obviously, it is not possible to now rectify the alleged undue restraint on respondent's actions as a result of the PPO during the time before its expiration. Respondent has not shown a likelihood that additional PPOs will be issued against her. Further, the record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that the issuance of the PPO resulted in any collateral consequences that continue to affect respondent. See Cathey, 261 Mich App at 510; see also Hayford, 279 Mich App at 325. Thus, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
The parties do not assert, nor does the record indicate, that the PPO was extended before it expired. See MCR 3.707(B).
Appeal dismissed as moot.
Jane E. Markey
Jane M. Beckering
Michael J. Kelly