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UNPUBLISHED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.
ZAHRA, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately because I
conclude the issue presented in this case is not moot. Once issued, a PPO is entered in the Law
Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). Significantly, there is no statutory provision for the
removal of an expired PPO. See MCL 600.2950a(12), (14), and (16). If this Court vacated the
PPO, the LEIN must be updated to reflect that the order has been rescinded, terminated, or
modified. See MCL 600.2950a(16). Other panels of this Court have adopted this reasoning.
See Dooley v Hartsell, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, entered
December 23, 2008 (Docket No. 280833); Londo v Jay, unpublished per curiam opinion of the
Court of Appeals, entered March 22, 2002 (Docket No. 227691). A question may not be moot if
it will continue to have collateral legal consequences. Mead v Batchlor, 435 Mich 480, 486; 460
NW2d 493 (1990). Because a legal remedy is attainable, the issue is not moot.
Although the matter is not moot, I concur in the result reached by the majority because I
conclude the lower court did not abuse its discretion in the issuance or continuance of the PPO. I
further conclude the lower court did not err when it limited the presentation of proofs in the
evidentiary hearing. I would affirm the lower court’s judgment on the merits.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
