The Court reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s finding that GM was an incapacitated individual subject to a guardianship and conservatorship because DHHS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that both MCL 700.5306 and MCL 700.5401 were met.

The trial court in this wrongful-death case properly 1) granted the estate’s motion to approve and distribute settlement proceeds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, and 2) excluded the husband – who was married to, but separated from, the decedent at the time of her death – from receiving any proceeds.

An auto insurance company could not rescind an insured’s policy ab initio (“from the beginning”) because there was not enough evidence the insured made fraudulent statements during the application process, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s legal-malpractice claim against the defendants because she did not file her complaint within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this child protective proceeding improperly conducted an in camera interview with one of the respondent-mother’s children, and this error deprived her of due process, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings of liability, fraudulent intent, and treble damages with regard to claims based on failure to disclose accurate mileage, but vacated its attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal framework as articulated in Pirgu v United Serv Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269 (2016).

The trial court in this “contentious” divorce case properly required the ex-husband to post a security bond each time he filed a motion or pleading, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, due to his “repeated” filing of “meritless” pleadings that violated the court rules.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the termination of a father’s parental rights, sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration after the father files a supplemental brief.

The COA held that a judge can pierce the veil of impartiality outside of the presence of a jury, and the judge did so here by suggesting questions that the prosecutor could ask on cross-examination, which amounted to the judge engaging in litigation strategy. However, this conduct did not amount to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. The COA, thus, affirmed the conviction and sentence.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The Court of Appeals emphasized an important corollary; a trial court is obligated to grant summary disposition when there is no genuine issue of material facts. In this case, there is no such issue, given the amount of photographic and video footage of the incident, no reasonable juror could find that the bus driver was more at fault than the plaintiff. 

The trial court in this divorce action erroneously granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition because there was a genuine issue whether oral postnuptial agreements existed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a divorce action filed almost ten years after a Consent Judgment of Separate Maintenance was entered including an order to sell the marital home and non-modifiable alimony payments, the Court of Appeals held that the parties’ agreements in the separate maintenance action were binding on the Trial Court in entering a subsequent Judgment of Divorce, except on issues where the parties both requested modification.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s denial of grandparenting time because, under Michigan’s grandparenting time statute, MCL 722.27b, the opportunity to be heard includes at a minimum the right to testify.

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, finding it should not have been dismissed because the unsolicited faxes sent to the plaintiff’s dental office were indeed “advertisements” that violated the law.

The Court reversed the trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances because under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court may bypass reunification and consider termination of parental rights at the outset only when a parent has already abused the child or the child’s sibling, not when there is anticipatory abuse or where the sibling is not biological.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition for Plaintiff’s breach of contract and public policy-based retaliation claims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to allow the receiver to reject a lease because the plain language of the Michigan Receiver Act allows a receiver to do so. The COA also affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to strike cross-default language from the contracts with Skymint.