From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Visser v. Visser

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Sep 27, 2013
836 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. 2013)

Opinion

Docket Nos. 146944 146945. COA Nos. 301864 305900.

2013-09-27

Heather Lynn VISSER, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Donovan J. VISSER, Respondent–Appellant.


Prior report: 299 Mich.App. 12, 829 N.W.2d 242.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We agree with the Court of Appeals that issues relating to the extensions of the personal protection order (PPO) are moot because there is no relief that can be granted, B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich.App. 356, 359, 586 N.W.2d 117 (1998), and the respondent has failed to identify any collateral consequences arising solely out of the length of time that the PPO was in effect. However, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion in this case because the issues relating to the initial granting of the PPO were not properly before the Court of Appeals where the respondent failed to seek appellate review of the original PPO. According to the Court of Appeals records, only the orders extending the PPO were appealed to that court. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.


Summaries of

Visser v. Visser

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Sep 27, 2013
836 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. 2013)
Case details for

Visser v. Visser

Case Details

Full title:Heather Lynn VISSER, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Donovan J. VISSER…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Sep 27, 2013

Citations

836 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. 2013)

Citing Cases

T.M. v. M.Z.

We ultimately vacated the Court of Appeals' analysis of the merits of the PPO because the respondent had…