ALICIA BOGGS V BRIAN BOGGS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ALICIA BOGGS,
UNPUBLISHED
September 24, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285040
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-738617-PP
BRIAN BOGGS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Saad, C.J., and Whitbeck and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals from a circuit court order denying his motion to set aside an ex parte
personal protection order (PPO) issued against him. We dismiss the appeal as moot. This appeal
has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Petitioner obtained a PPO against respondent on September 27, 2007. The order
contained an expiration date of September 27, 2008, and the order denying respondent’s motion
indicated that the PPO would expire on that date. The parties do not assert, nor does the record
indicate, that the PPO was extended before it expired. See MCR 3.707(B). Because the PPO is
no longer in effect, it is impossible for this Court to grant relief and respondent’s issues
challenging the PPO are moot. B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586
NW2d 117 (1998). While this Court may review a moot issue if it is deemed to be of public
significance and is likely to recur while simultaneously likely to evade judicial review, City of
Warren v Detroit, 261 Mich App 165, 166 n 1; 680 NW2d 57 (2004), this exception is generally
limited to exceptional circumstances where it is reasonably likely that the appellant will be
subjected to the same action again. Los Angeles v Lyons, 461 US 95, 109; 103 S Ct 1660; 75 L
Ed 2d 675 (1983); Weinstein v Bradford, 423 US 147, 149; 96 S Ct 347; 46 L Ed 2d 350 (1975).
Respondent has not shown a likelihood that additional PPOs will be issued against him. 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. Hayford v Hayford, 279 Mich App
324, 325; 760 NW2d 503 (2008); People v Cathey, 261 Mich App 506, 510; 681 NW2d 661
(2004).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
