Rittershaus v. Rittershaus, 273 Mich.App.462, 730 N.W.2d 262
N/A
OUTCOME: Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our client's favor
If the Court grants a change of domicile requested by a parent, it must then determine if there is a change in the established custodial environment created by the move. If the move will not change th...e established custodial environment, then the Court is not required to do an analysis of the best interest factors and the standard of burden for the change of domicile is preponderance of the evidence. However, if the Court does find that the move will change the established custodial environment, then it is obligated to do an analysis of the best interest factors and the standard of burden for the change of domicile is clear and convincing evidence. Finally, if a non-moving party in a change of domicile matter petitions for a change of custody, the Court is required to consider the best interest factors before denying the petition for a change of custody.
Family
Kirby v. Vance, 481 Mich. 889, 749 N.W.2d 741
N/A
OUTCOME: Michigan Supreme Court ruled in our client's favor
The issues of custody, parenting time and child support were referred to Arbitration. The Arbitrator failed to tape record the testimony of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s father in accordance with MCL 600.5...070; instead she took notes. When the matter was brought to the trial court’s attention, the court ruled that the Arbitrator’s notes were sufficient to do an independent review of the award and subsequently entered an order adopting the Arbitrator’s award. The Court of Appeals (Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2008 WL 314943 Mich.App.) affirmed the lower Court’s ruling stating that since the Plaintiff stipulated to the testimony not being recorded, she had relinquished the argument. Plaintiff then brought the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court ruling that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority outlined in MCL 600.5070 because she failed to adequately tape record the proceedings; therefore, the trial court was unable to conduct a truly independent review of the Arbitrator’s findings. The Supreme Court further ruled that the Arbitrator’s ruling should be vacated and another hearing be conducted before the same Arbitrator or if the party’s agreed the court could conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Family
Najt v. Najt, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2009 WL 1351981
N/A
OUTCOME: Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our client's favor
The Defendant appealed as right the trial court’s Judgment of Divorce. Defendant brought the action before the Court of Appeals stating that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to al...low her to cross-examine Plaintiff regarding testimony he provided during his direct examination about Defendant’s mental health. Defendant asserted her doctor-patient privilege after Plaintiff’s direct testimony had concluded. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did error in not allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s prior testimony; however, the error was harmless. Next, Defendant argued that the Court failed to consider all of the spousal support factors in awarding her $2,500.00 per month for eight years, plus COBRA benefits for three years. The Court of Appeals found that the award was sufficient to sustain her current lifestyle and allow her to become re-employed. Defendant next argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her $25,000.00 in attorney fees and also not equalizing attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings that Defendant was awarded a sufficient amount of spousal support to pay for her everyday needs; therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to require Defendant to pay for the remainder of her fees by obtaining employment or using her property settlement. The Court of Appeals also found that while Plaintiff’s attorney fees were more than Defendant’s, the difference in the fees was caused by Defendant’s behavior throughout the proceedings and that Defendant spent a significant amount of funds on luxury purchases. Lastly, Defendant argued that the Judgment of Divorce should be amended to equally divide the Plaintiff’s Merrill Lynch IRA account. During trial, the parties failed to admit Plaintiff’s Merrill Lynch IRA statement and since the Plaintiff only estimated his pre-marital contribution to the account, the trial court properly declined to consider the IRA in the division of the assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment of Divorce; however, they remanded the missed issue of Plaintiff’s Merrill Lynch IRA to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine each party’s right in the IRA.
Family
Urban v. Briggs, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2012 WL 716288
N/A
OUTCOME: Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our client's favor
The Court held that the trial court's findings under the D'Onofrio and best interests tests were not against the great weight of the evidence and thus, the trial Court did not abuse its discretion in g...ranting Plaintiff-father’s motion for a change of domicile to another state. The Court also rejected Defendant's argument that the trial Court erred in not permitting Friend of the Court counselor to testify at the evidentiary hearing. The Court noted that the trial Court's quashing of the subpoena to the FOC indicated that it believed her testimony would be cumulative to her report, and that its exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. The Court further rejected Defendant's claim that the trial Court failed to apply the proper burden of proof, noting that even if it had erroneously applied an incorrect legal standard, the error was harmless because plaintiff met his burden by clear and convincing evidence. Finally, the Court rejected Defendant's argument that the trial Court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to plaintiff, noting that the trial court's findings were not unreasonable, as they demonstrated that Defendant acted unreasonably and had to be reprimanded several times during the proceedings.
