LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Two neighbors in Michigan who live next to each other and share a driveway have been squabbling for years. Despite an easement agreement put in writing by the predecessors of both families, the Court of Appeals reports “the parties relentlessly quarreled about the driveway’s use. Other family members and neighbors were pulled into the disagreement, creating warring factions. Battles raged on issues ranging from installing chicken wire fences to hanging surveillance cameras from trees, sometimes leading to screaming matches on the street.”

The court filing didn’t release the names of the parties, only initials. It names the females as Appellee CNN (whose husband is MN) and Appellant SEB (whose husband is EB).

MORE NEWS: Firearm Deer Season Takes Aim in Michigan Today

The court explains an incident on August 8th, 2021 as follows: “The incident triggering the current filing arose on August 8, 2021, when MN parked his car in the driveway directly in front of his garage and began vacuuming the inside, with his back turned to SEB’s property. From her porch, CNN observed SEB approach MN to take cell phone pictures of him. CNN walked over and stood between SEB and MN. She repeatedly told SEB to go away. SEB’s sister, RJ, and EB joined the gathering. Another neighbor, LM, heard the argument and drew near to assist CNN and MN. When LM came outside, SEB shouted, “[H]ere come your masser (sic).” (LM is white; CNN, SEB and their husbands are African American.) CNN and LM reported that SEB and EB repeated the comment approximately four times. LM returned to his house. CNN told SEB that her comment was “foul.” SEB then made a motion “like she was trying to . . . come at” CNN. RJ grabbed SEB’s arm to stop her and SEB tried to pull loose. CNN asked SEB, “[W]hat are you doing? What is that you want[?] You want to come at me[?]” CNN and MN then turned away and returned to their homes.”

According to a witness, SEB’s nephew, SS, pulled up into the driveway about an hour later, yelling at CNN to not threaten his aunt and issued a nondescript threat of his own. Soon after, the police arrived. As the officers investigated, SEB and her family members continued to yell at CNN and MN as they spoke to the police and CNN testified that they “started yelling and hollering you know and intimidating.” After an officer told SEB to stop yelling, CNN asked the police if they could finish their conversation on the porch because the reaction of SEB and her family members made them “nervous.”

CNN continued to tell the officer about the past dealings with the neighbors and that they made her “quite fearful” and proceeded to ask for a PPO against the neighbor.

While at the PPO hearing, the court reminded the parties that it had presided over the five previous PPO proceedings and was familiar with their history saying, “I am familiar with both of the parties. We have had a number of hearing(s). I think that I recall five or six individual files that I have personally been involved with on (PPOs) that are related to the…two households. They are not necessarily between these two parties individually, but they are related to either spouse or friends or family related to these two parties.”

Over the years, the warring neighbors and their families and friends have been to circuit court numerous times with repeated requests for personal protection orders (PPOs) coming from both sides. After the incident on August 8, 2021, the court finally granted a PPO to CNN based on the hate speech that contained “odious and racially charged comments.”

MORE NEWS: Know Your Rights? Saline Immigration Panel Loaded With Anti-ICE Sources.

However, this PPO was challenged and went to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The court said, “While ugly, rude and insensitive, SEB’s statements fell within the range of expression protected by the First Amendment.”

Attorney Kevin Gentry, who represented SEB, said to Michigan Radio, “If people could get a PPO because they didn’t like one another or because they said bad things to one another, the courts would be rapidly clogged up with many, many, many PPOs because there are plenty of people in the world who don’t get along.”

Although Michigan law bars harassment, it doesn’t apply to constitutionally protected activity.

Gentry continued to say, “Anything that crosses the line into violence, or incitement of violence or threat of violence is still totally regulatable by a PPO and totally prohibitable conduct. This merely says that being exceptionally rude is not.”