The allegation that an extended-stay motel room was “too small” for the respondent-mother to live in with her child and the child’s father was insufficient grounds for terminating her parental rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published opinion.

Defendants who have different potential liabilities lack the “substantial identity of interests” as required for a finding of privity in an analysis of whether res judicata applies to a subsequent claim.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s award of treble damages as to the documented pecuniary losses, reversed the award of trebled investigatory expenses, vacated the awards for investigatory expenses and attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition because Michigan law recognizes a critical exception for loading or uploading in its definition of parking, and thus Plaintiff’s conduct fits within that exception, and because comparative negligence is a question for the jury.

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 erred when it effectively changed physical custody based solely on an in camera interview with the children without making findings regarding whether the change would alter the established custodial environment and applying the appropriate burden of proof, whether modification was in the children’s best interests.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case correctly held that it was in the minor child’s best interests to terminate the respondent-father’s parental rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 decision.

The Court held that remanding for nonsummary contempt proceedings after vacating a summary conviction for insufficient findings is improper when the original contempt was appropriately handled summarily (because it occurred in the judge’s presence) however, the record was too insufficient to support a conviction and the original proceeding has long concluded.

In an unanimous opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there is no clear evidence that the Legislature intended the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) to eliminate common-law claims such as fraud, conversion, and breach of contract arising from a gambling dispute between a patron and an online gaming licensee.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case applied the wrong legal framework when assessing the children’s best interests, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, and Wallace had standing to file their respective lawsuits, but they were not the real parties in interest at the time of filing because they had assigned their claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to third parties.

Trial Court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights to her six children. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The city of Detroit was not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity after the Court determined that a metal stub protruding out of a paved sidewalk constituted a “sidewalk defect” and created “a dangerous condition”. . The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to the trial court.

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.

Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights to minor child GM. The Court reasoned that Petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), failed to create and implement a case service plan for Respondent as required by MCL 712A.18f.

A divided Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights, with one appellate judge saying the termination order should be reversed because the trial court “clearly erred” in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

The trial court’s finding that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests must be “conditionally reverse[d],” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with its statutory duty to investigate relative placements.