phone icon email icon
(517) 482-8933

Speaker Law
Blog

#
Posted: Mar 25, 2020, 10:05 AM
On appeal, the defendant claimed the trial court’s decision regarding proper cause or change in circumstances was erroneous. Among other things, he challenged the timeliness of the evidence considered by the trial court
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 18, 2020, 9:15 AM
The plaintiff-mother and the defendant-father were married in 2013. They child was born in 2015. A judgment of divorce was entered by the Oakland County Circuit Court in April 2016. The divorce judgment provided that the parties shared joint legal custody of the child and the plaintiff had primary physical custody.
Read More
#
Posted: Mar 11, 2020, 1:15 PM
The plaintiff and the defendant are the parents of twins. The parties were never married or in a romantic relationship. The parties shared legal custody and the defendant had physical custody of the children. The parties were able to effectively co-parent throughout much of the children’s adolescence.
Read More
#
Posted: Feb 5, 2020, 11:10 AM
A 14-year-old’s petition to change his surname was properly granted by the trial court even though the statutory requirements for a name change were not met, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Jan 8, 2020, 1:30 PM
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sought temporary jurisdiction of the respondent-father’s children after the mother, who was the custodial parent, was found dead. The DHHS asserted various reasons why it was improper to place the children with the respondent, including that he had been ordered not to have unsupervised contact with the children.
Read More
#
Posted: Dec 25, 2019, 6:20 PM
The Jackson County Circuit Court in Patterson v Patterson (Docket No. 347415), issued a judgment of divorce and a custody determination following a bench trial. The plaintiff was awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ minor children.
Read More
#
Posted: Dec 18, 2019, 9:35 AM
The plaintiff and the defendant, who were married for 29 years, entered into a consent judgment of divorce in 2014. The judgment included a spousal support provision that said the plaintiff would receive spousal support for 10 years, until the plaintiff’s death or until she remarried, whichever occurred first
Read More
#
Posted: Dec 11, 2019, 11:50 AM
The ex-wife in Ripley (Docket No. 327285) argued the trial court wrongly allocated two assets to the defendant – the accounts receivable at his law firm and a GTO – without first including their value in the marital estate. The ex-wife also claimed the trial court’s overall division of the marital estate was inequitable.
Read More
#
Posted: Dec 4, 2019, 10:45 AM
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in October 1995. When the couple divorced in 2018, the plaintiff was 58 years old and the defendant was 65 years old. The parties have two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce.
Read More
#
Posted: Nov 27, 2019, 9:35 AM
Adoption appeals frequently involve situations that require immediate action by the courts, which means emergency motions must be filed. Two recent adoption cases exemplify when such emergency motions are necessary: In re MGR and In re LMB.
Read More
#
Posted: Nov 20, 2019, 12:20 PM
The father in Blakeman was being kept out of his home and away from his four children pursuant to an Ingham County trial court order, which was contrary to the recommendations of Children’s Protective Services (CPS) case workers.
Read More
#
Posted: Nov 13, 2019, 2:30 PM
Child custody cases regularly require the filing of an emergency motion – which is what happened in Brenner v Kerkstra (Docket No. 346078). In Brenner, the appeal by right deadline had been missed, leaving an application for leave to appeal as the only option for appellate review.
Read More
#
Posted: Nov 6, 2019, 11:35 AM
In Palmer, the plaintiff and the defendant were never married and had one child together, AP. The Gratiot County Circuit Court had previously granted the plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of AP; had granted the defendant reasonable supervised parenting time with no overnights; and had permitted the plaintiff to move with AP to North Dakota, where he had secured a higher-paying job.
Read More
#
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: Apr 17, 2019, 3:51 PM
In this action involving a mother’s motion to relocate the parties’ child to Sault Ste. Marie, the trial court erred by failing to properly address whether an established custodial environment existed and, if it did, whether the relocation would alter that environment, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Nov 28, 2018, 11:45 AM
A father remained responsible for more than $40,000 in unpaid child support from a 1992 paternity case because the 10-year statute of limitations for enforcing child-support orders was tolled by the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Sep 20, 2018, 1:45 PM
An Ecuadorian mother’s taking of her minor child from Michigan to Ecuador in 2009 without notifying the father, in violation of the parties’ divorce judgment, did not preclude the possibility that the child had become a “habitual resident” of Ecuador for purposes of a Hague Convention challenge to the father’s 2016 failure to return the child to Ecuador after she visited him in Michigan, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Sep 6, 2018, 12:25 PM
A trial court erred in distributing a divorcing couple’s marital property because the parties’ prenuptial agreement was ignored in doing so, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. In Silverman v Silverman (Docket No. 336905, unpublished opinion), the Court of Appeals said the trial court could not “simply disregard the prenuptial agreement and resort to equitable considerations without any analysis as to why it was doing so.”
Read More
#
Posted: Aug 15, 2018, 9:15 AM
A spousal support award and the division of property in a divorce case must be vacated because the trial court engaged in a “parade of errors” – namely, denying the husband’s constitutional right to counsel, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
Read More
#
Posted: Aug 1, 2018, 9:15 AM
The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order denying a divorced father’s request to change the school his children attend, finding the trial court failed to 1) address the children’s established custodial environment, 2) describe the applicable burden of proof and 3) consider the Child Custody Act’s best-interest factors. In Marik v Marik (Docket No. 333687), the Court of Appeals remanded the case so the trial court could properly handle these issues.
Read More

Subscribe to our blog

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

Archived
Posts

Tags