The trial court in this divorce case erroneously disregarded the parties’ valid and enforceable prenuptial agreement before dividing their marital property due to perceived inequities, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the Oakland County trial court improperly granted an ex-husband’s motion to “clarify” the parties’ judgment of divorce because, in doing so, the trial court actually modified the judgment, thereby affecting the parties’ substantive rights.

The trial court properly entered a default judgment of divorce in this case because the defendant failed to show “good cause” for setting aside the default, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this suit contesting the validity of a divorce judgment, the trial court correctly held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and, as a result, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Because the plaintiff did not suffer “any actual loss or injury,” the trial court in this divorce action did not err by awarding the plaintiff $0 in restitution.

The defendant is entitled to relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the trial court erred in several respects.

The trial court in this divorce action used the appropriate method to determine the value of the plaintiff’s law practice when dividing the marital estate, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

An attorney fee award in this divorce action must be vacated, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the trial court did not make a finding as to whether the requested fee was reasonable.

The trial court’s denial of attorney fees in this divorce action was not “outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this divorce action, the COA affirmed the discovery sanctions that were imposed but remanded the case for the trial court to address various marital asset issues.

The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the GAL’s reports, LARA documents, and expert opinion testimony about domestic violence because each piece of evidence was inadmissible.

The trial court did not err when computing the parties’ incomes - particularly capital gains - for purposes of determining child support, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court committed clear legal error in Butters v Butters by failing to hold a live hearing where the plaintiff would have the right to present evidence.

A widow who filed for divorce more than one year before her husband’s death qualifies as his surviving spouse for inheritance purposes, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

Even though the parties’ consent judgment of divorce included an offset provision, the defendant’s challenge to enforcing that provision is an improper collateral attack.

In this divorce case, the COA adopted a new legal framework that “blends” the “contractual approach” and the “balancing approach” to determine the disposition of a frozen embryo.