734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

BUSINESS LAW 12: Dispute involving the distribution of assets in which plaintiff and defendant were both members of the LLC.

This case arises from a dispute involving the distribution of assets of LLC (the company), in which plaintiff and defendant were both members.

Plaintiff and defendant established the company in December 2012 to engage in the rental and sale of single-family residences in the Southeastern Michigan area.

In May 2017, plaintiff filed for an accounting of the company’s assets, judicial dissolution of the company, and appointment of a receiver.

Plaintiff had filed an accounting with the trial court.

Defendant argues that there is no evidentiary support for the trial court’s findings with respect to defendant (1) withdrawing $53,384.73 in unverified expenses from the company’s bank account, and (2) improperly receiving $4,550 in land contract payments. Defendant contends that the trial court’s factual determination that the company owed plaintiff $45,646.77 for loans is without evidentiary support.

Plaintiff testified at trial that the tenant, at defendant’s request, had sent $4,550 in land contract payments to a secret post box number owned by defendant. Plaintiff’s testimony supports the trial court’s findings with respect to the land contract payments.

During the third day of trial, plaintiff presented exhibits, which includes two ledger sheets documenting $53,584.73 that defendant had withdrawn from the company’s bank account by checks for alleged expenses. Plaintiff explained that defendant could not provide invoices for these checks and, in response to plaintiff’s queries, defendant merely stated that the undocumented expenses were for unspecified repairs. To the extent defendant now maintains that the monetary amounts listed in the ledger are not supported by evidence of record, the review of the exhibit reveals that each amount listed on the ledger corresponds to an actual withdrawal documented in the company’s bank account statements. Plaintiff provided examples of this during his trial testimony. Review of a sampling of the withdrawals from the company’s bank account confirms plaintiff’s testimony.

Given plaintiff’s testimony regarding the loans and the documentary evidence confirming the amounts of the loans that were taken to fund the company’s business, the trial court found that the company still owed plaintiff.

After conducting a three-day bench trial, the court entered a written opinion and order determining the assets and liabilities of the company and ordering the distribution of the company’s assets in conformance with the company’s operating agreement.

If you are a business owner facing litigation, obtaining the right legal representation is essential.

At Aldrich Legal Services, you will work with an attorney who has the extensive litigation experience necessary to help you reach an effective resolution that protects your interests. Few law firms in southeast Michigan are better equipped to represent your business in high-stakes litigation.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405