phone icon email icon
(517) 482-8933

Speaker Law
Blog

#
Posted: Oct 30, 2019, 9:30 AM
In 2015, the parties entered into a consent judgment of divorce. They had one child together during their marriage. The judgment set forth the agreed-upon custody and parenting time schedule. Because both parties were nurses who worked 8-to-12-hour shifts, the judgment included an RFR provision.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 23, 2019, 10:40 AM
The parties were divorced and had two children, AAM and MCM, during their marriage. The divorce judgment, entered by the Ionia County Circuit Court, awarded joint legal custody of the children to both parties and primary physical custody to the plaintiff. The defendant, who served in the military, accepted a job in Virginia in 2013. He returned to Michigan in 2016 and filed a motion for parenting time, which the trial court granted.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 16, 2019, 11:15 AM
In Slocum v Floyd, the defendant was divorced from the plaintiffs’ son. After the divorce, the plaintiffs’ son had primary physical custody of the children and both parents shared legal custody. The plaintiffs’ son later remarried but died in a motorcycle accident. After their son’s death, the plaintiffs filed emergency petitions seeking a temporary guardianship over the children.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 11, 2019, 3:05 PM
In August 2014, Dr. El-Khalil had sued Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), as well as tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship and defamation.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 9, 2019, 10:55 AM
In Luna v Regnier, the Tuscola County Circuit Court completely suspended the mother’s parenting time with her children, finding there was clear and convincing evidence the children’s mental and emotional health was endangered by allowing her to visit with them.
Read More
#
Posted: Oct 2, 2019, 4:00 PM
In a recent published Court of Appeals opinion, Slocum v Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan, issued June 18, 2019 (Docket No. 343333), the Court of Appeals was called upon to consider a consolidated appeal about “whether a deceased’s dependents are entitled to the replacement cost of obtaining medical and dental benefits similar to those provided by the deceased’s former employer or to the monetary value of the premiums paid by the former employer.”
Read More

Subscribe to our blog

* indicates required
Do you have an appeal?
Let's find out!

Archived
Posts

Tags