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 Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, 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.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.