Grand Rapids, MI
Consumer protection Lawyer at Grand Rapids, MI
Practice Areas: Consumer Protection, Debt Collection ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Appeal granted for Haveman
On interlocutory appeal from the Barry County District Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals on May 30, 2019 ruled in favor of Haveman that the statute she was charged under, MCL 750.135a, is a general ... intent rather than a strict liability offense. This ruling entitles Haveman to full and fair defense under the law.
OUTCOME: Not guilty on all charges
In Case No. 19-009583-FH-B (49th Circuit Court) in Mecosta County, Defendant was charged with felony tampering with evidence (MCL 750.483a(5)) and as a habitual offender (MCL 769.12). After an all-day ... jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
OUTCOME: Monetary damages awarded to plaintiff
In Case No. 18-228-CK in the Berrien County Trial Court, Plaintiff was awarded $5,000.00 under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act because the car dealership failed to properly notify her that it was ... not providing gap insurance on the vehicle as part of the original sales agreement.
OUTCOME: Case dismissed with prejudice
In Case No. 18-1116-GC (62A District Court) in Ionia County, plaintiff's debt-collection case for $3,792 plus costs and fees against defendant was dismissed with prejudice.
OUTCOME: Garnishment withdrawn and judgment dismissed
In Case No. 18b-1141-GC (33rd District Court) in Wayne County, defendant received a default debt-collection judgment against her and was at risk of garnishment. After intervening in the case, the garni ... shment was withdrawn and the judgment dismissed.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
