The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by requiring the parties to undergo psychological evaluations before filing future custody or parenting-time motions, because that requirement conflicts with the statutory framework set forth in MCL 722.27(1)(c).

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services violated the court rules in this termination of parental rights case when, at the father’s request, it did not produce video recordings of interviews conducted with his minor children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Attorneys, parties and subpoenaed witnesses cannot be subject to civil arrest while traveling to, attending or leaving court proceedings or performing related legal duties under a recent amendment to Michigan Court Rule 8.115.

‍ ‍

Under Michigan’s Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), a testamentary devise of categories of personal property — each prefaced with the word “my” and intended for a specific, named devisee — constitutes a specific devise rather than a general devise.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a Michigan defendant’s petition for habeas corpus, finding that his attorneys were effective at his criminal trial, even though they did not investigate an “acetaminophen-based defense” and did not call an expert witness.

In this boundary dispute between neighbors, the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to the “hostility” element of adverse possession, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, thereby vacating the quiet title judgment that had been issued and remanding the case for further factual findings.

In this dispute over the division of the decedent’s financial accounts, the probate court properly placed a restriction on the funds that the respondent had received as a designated beneficiary on certain accounts, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Under MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a), a probate court has an affirmative duty to afford all interested persons the opportunity to examine and controvert a guardian ad litem (GAL) report once it has been received into evidence—regardless of whether the interested person formally requests access and regardless of whether the report is designated as confidential.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.

An attorney who uses AI software to draft appellate briefs and files them without properly verifying the cited legal authorities violates ethical duties of competence and candor.

The trial court cannot restrict use of an easement when neither the easement itself nor past practice supports that restriction. Additionally, the trial court erred in finding the Association liable for nuisance as there were no findings of fact supporting the nuisance claim and any conduct that disrupted Plaintiffs enjoyment of their property was the conduct of individual subdivision owners, not the Association.

The “American rule” does not necessarily bar a claim for attorney fees in an accounting malpractice action, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in Merrifield v ATS Advisors, et al.

The Court of Appeals vacated the order terminating Respondents’ parental rights because the trial court plainly erred by excusing reasonable efforts toward reunification without a proper aggravated circumstances finding.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) only applies to invalidate arbitration provisions in contracts "evidencing a transaction involving commerce."

The Court unanimously overruled In re Estate of Schroeder, 335 Mich App 107 (2020), which had held that probate courts cannot consider Medicaid-related circumstances until after a formal eligibility determination is made.

In this case involving the suicide of a teenage resident at the Calumet Center, a Michigan-licensed child-caring institution, the trial court should not have granted summary disposition for the plaintiff-parents on the issue of comparative fault because it was a factual question for the jury, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the probate court acted within its discretion when it determined that the appellant’s litigation did not enhance, preserve, or protect trust property, provisions that MCL 700.7904(1) requires before awarding fees from the trust.

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a dispute over the title to funds in a decedent’s credit union account, ordering the parties in In re Sherrod Estate to address “what constitutes sufficient evidence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship.”