A.Time Requirements for Filing Motion
“The petitioner may file an ex parte motion to extend the effectiveness of the order, without [a] hearing, by requesting a new expiration date. The motion must be filed with the court that issued the [PPO] no later than 3 days before the order is to expire.” MCR 3.707(B)(1).
A petitioner’s “[f]ailure to timely file a motion to extend the effectiveness of [a PPO] does not preclude the petitioner from commencing a new personal protection action regarding the same respondent, as provided in MCR 3.703.” MCR 3.707(B)(1).
Within three days of a petitioner filing an ex parte motion to extend the effectiveness of the order, the court must act on the petitioner’s motion. MCR 3.703(B)(1).
“If the expiration date on a [PPO] is extended, an amended order must be entered.” MCR 3.707(B)(2). “The clerk must immediately notify the law enforcement agency specified in the [PPO] of the change.” Id. See also MCL 600.2950(19)(b) and MCL 600.2950a(19)(b), which contain substantially similar language.
“The [amended] order must be served on the respondent as provided in MCR 2.107 [(governing service of pleadings and other documents)].” MCR 3.707(B)(2).
D.Minors or Legally Incapacitated Individuals
“Petitioners or respondents who are minors or legally incapacitated individuals must proceed through a next friend, as provided in MCR 3.703(F).” MCR 3.707(C). For additional information on minors and legally incapacitated individuals as parties to a personal protection proceeding, see Section 5.4.
There are no motion fees for filing a motion to extend a PPO. MCR 3.707(D).
“[B]oth MCR 3.707(B)(1) and MCR 3.708(H)(5) are relevant to the trial court’s authority to extend a PPO.” In re SB, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024). “MCR 3.707(B)(1) contains no language permitting the trial court to extend a PPO on its own initiative, while providing for the procedure and time limits for a petitioner to move to extend the PPO. Thus, it appears that MCR 3.707(B)(1)’s drafters made a ‘meaningful choice’ that a petitioner may initiate an extension of a PPO by motion, not the trial court.” SB, ___ Mich App at ___, quoting Dawley v Hall, 501 Mich 166, 171-172 (2018).
However, when sentencing a respondent for criminal contempt under MCR 3.708(H)(5)(a) for violating a PPO, “the court may impose other conditions to the personal protection order,” including an extension. SB, ___ Mich App at ___, quoting MCR 3.708(H)(5). Interpreting the words “other” and “condition” according to their “common, ordinary meaning[s],” “MCR 3.708(H)(5) can be reasonably construed as granting the trial court discretion to impose different or additional stipulations, provisions, qualifications, or prerequisites to the PPO—i.e., to limit or expand the scope of the PPO—when sentencing a respondent for criminal contempt.” SB, ___ Mich App at ___ (affirming the trial court’s sua sponte ten-month extension of respondent’s PPO after finding him guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing him to 93 days in jail for violating his PPO). In SB, ___ Mich App at ___, the Court “conclude[d] that ‘other conditions’ under MCR 3.708(H)(5) do indeed include modifications to a PPO’s expiration date.”