Judicial estoppel barred Plaintiff-Appellant's claims that depended on an ownership interest in the property, as she had previously denied such an interest in her bankruptcy petition. However, judicial estoppel did not preclude her claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.

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 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 Supreme Court will not decide a dispute over a divorced couple’s cryogenically frozen embryo, saying it was “not persuaded” the justices should review the issues presented.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in favor of Defendants, an attorney and his law firm.  The Court reasoned that Defendants were immune from tort liability when speaking to the State Bar of Michigan’s character-and-fitness committee regarding Plaintiff, a law school graduate, even if their statements could have been false or misleading.

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.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights because he failed to assert the child’s Native American or tribal affiliation to the Trial Court and failed to demonstrate that he would be able to rectify his substance-use barrier in a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

The right to “address” a public body under the Open Meetings Act can be satisfied through both oral and written submissions, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

When a parent challenges the validity of a release of parental rights on the ground that it was not made knowingly or voluntarily, the parent alleges a concrete injury arising from the trial court’s order and qualifies as an aggrieved party for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.

In this case involving contaminated doses of an antiviral medication, the defendants were immune from liability under the federal Public Readiness and Preparedness Act because they did not engage in “willful misconduct” by manufacturing or administering the contaminated drug to the plaintiffs, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A petitioner’s release from the sex offender registry requirements in Iowa does not necessitate that he also be relieved of his Michigan sex offender registry requirements, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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.

Respondent parents did not abandon their child and DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to remove the child. Therefore, the COA affirmed the trial court’s decision to decline jurisdiction.

The Trial Court did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), as Respondent-Mother was not “able” to provide DVL with the proper and necessary support for his care. The Trial Court also did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(2), as Respondent-Mother did not “neglect” DVL because Respondent-Mother did not engage in “negligent treatment” of DVL as defined by MCL 722.602(1)(d).

A violation of the law for the purposes of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act is not limited to statutory enactments but may also include violations of common law.

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’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.