Attorney James W. Fraser's Legal Cases

Family

Taylor v Taylor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 257840

May 09, 2019

OUTCOME: Reverse and Remand

Presumed father appealed trial court’s order denying his motion to revoke paternity under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA), MCL 722.1431 et seq. Trial court determined that it would not be in chi ... ld's best interests if she was declared born out of wedlock because of loss of financial support and concerns over child's biological father. Court of Appeals determined that trial court clearly erred when it denied presumed father's motion because concern over biological father was minimal and no connection existed between presumed father and child except for the financial connection.

Divorce and separation

Taylor v Taylor, 323 Mich App 197; 916 NW2d 652 (2018)

Feb 22, 2018

OUTCOME: Reverse and Remand

Appeal of trial court’s ruling that three-year statute of limitations in the Revocation of Paternity Act (the “RPA”) applies when the matter is brought up during a divorce or separate maintenance actio ... n. Sec. 11(2) of the RPA provides that If a child has a presumed father, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock if an action is filed by the presumed father within 3 years after the child's birth or if the presumed father raises the issue in an action for divorce or separate maintenance between the presumed father and the mother. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred when it found that a motion to revoke paternity could not be raised in a divorce action if three years had passed following the child's birth.

Trusts

In re Theodora Nickels Herbert Trust, 303 Mich App 456; 844 NW2d 163 (2013)

Dec 13, 2013

OUTCOME: Affirmed

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that a settlor’s child may devise his interest in the trust to a successor upon his death. The Court of Appeals found that the settlor’s child h ... ad a vested right to the trust which could be passed according to his will. The Court of Appeals also rejected the other settlor’s children’s argument that the trust’s spendthrift provision did not prevent the settlor’s child from passing his interest upon his death.

Divorce and separation

Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich App 21; 826 NW2d 152 (2012).

Sep 20, 2012

OUTCOME: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Obtained reversal of trial court decision regarding spousal support and attorney fees. The trial court held that the value of a business cannot be used for both property division and spousal support. w ... hich would result in a "double dip." The Court of Appeals reversed, declining to "adopt a bright-line rule with respect to “excess income" and held that courts must employ a case-by-case approach when determining whether "double dipping" will achieve an outcome that is just and reasonable.

Litigation

In Re Subpoena of Howard Willson, Order of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 301236.

Jan 28, 2011

OUTCOME: Reverse and Remand

Obtained peremptory reversal of trial court order quashing de benne esse deposition of witness pursuant to a subpoena for a trial pending in the New Jersey state courts. Court of Appeals vacated trial ... court order quashing subpoena for deposition and remanded for further proceedings.

James W. Fraser's Legal Cases (5)

Taylor v Taylor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 257840

Taylor v Taylor, 323 Mich App 197; 916 NW2d 652 (2018)

In re Theodora Nickels Herbert Trust, 303 Mich App 456; 844 NW2d 163 (2013)

Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich App 21; 826 NW2d 152 (2012).

In Re Subpoena of Howard Willson, Order of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 301236.