Now Accepting New Clients!

CRIMINAL 10: Because defendant agreed at sentencing, he cannot seek appeal.

Over the course of eight months, defendant improperly received checks totaling over $128,000 from the bank account of an ailing, elderly man. This included a single check for $78,000, which defendant promptly used to buy a house. Several years later, when the time came to face the consequences for his criminal actions, defendant was still enjoying the warmth and comfort of the house he bought with the vulnerable adult’s money.

The trial court sentenced defendant to serve six months in jail and five years of probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered defendant to sell the house that he bought with the victim’s money and to apply the proceeds of that sale to the $128,000 restitution amount that defendant agreed to pay as part of his plea deal.

After initially agreeing that the probation condition was justice, defendant later moved the trial court to strike the probation condition, arguing that the condition was invalid. The trial court denied the motion. Because defendant agreed at sentencing that it was justice to require him to sell the home and apply the sale proceeds to the agreed-upon restitution amount, defendant has waived appellate review of the issues he now brings before this Court.

Our Supreme Court explained that waiver reflects the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right and that a party who waives his rights cannot seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights, considering that the waiver extinguished any error.

A party cannot stipulate to a matter before the trial court and then argue on appeal that the resulting action was erroneous.

At sentencing, defendant objected to the trial court’s imposition of a sentence involving any jail time. Defendant did not object to the imposition of a sentence including an order of restitution. Indeed, defendant specifically agreed to pay $128,000 restitution as a condition of his no-contest plea.

As defendant begged for a sentence that did not involve incarceration, he specifically compared and contrasted the probation condition that he sell the home with the prospect of serving time in jail, calling the probation condition justice and stating that he would have to find another place to live, indicating affirmative agreement with the probation condition that he sell the home.

When you are facing criminal charges, it is important to quickly secure effective legal representation.

There are few criminal lawyers in Plymouth and Ann Arbor Michigan better suited to represent you than Aldrich Legal Services. Aldrich Legal Services will provide you with the strong advocate you need when your rights, your freedom and your record are on the line.


Penalties For Driving Without Insurance in Michigan

Getting into a car and going for a drive isn’t perfectly safe. Driving on the Michigan roads can be dangerous. Driving those same roads becomes financially dangerous if you drive without car insurance. Between fees, charges, and possible...

PROBATE 36: Undue influence to execute Lady Bird deed.

This probate dispute between siblings arises out of the death of their father. Their father lived alone. In 2013, however, he asked appellee to live with him. She agreed, moving into the home in August 2013. Appellants allege that in the years...

Top 5 Most Common Traffic Violations in Michigan

Staying safe on the roads is in everyone’s best interest. However, keeping yourself or others out of danger is everyone’s responsibility. Getting a traffic ticket ends up costing drivers big time. Traffic tickets and citations cost money...

A Cheap Divorce is Not Worth It

Money is an important factor whenever you work with a professional. When you go through a divorce, your money and time can get even tighter. Hiring a cheap lawyer to handle your case could be attractive. However, they will end up letting you down....

REAL ESTATE 50: Trial court relied upon warranty deed documents that provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement.

In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon the 2013 warranty deed documents that twice expressly provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement. Review of the 2005 Amendment demonstrated that every aspect of the Original Easement was expressly repeated, modified, or omitted. Nothing in the language of the 2005 Amendment suggests that it is intended to be read in conjunction with the Original Easement.

PROBATE 33: Petitioners filed for co-guardianship of each grandchild.

Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.

What are Replevin Bonds or Surety Bonds?

It would be a wonderful world if people followed through on the agreements they make. There would be less stress, anxiety, and time wasted if people held up their end of a contract 100% of the time. The legal process would run much more smoothly and...

FAMILY LAW 42: Motion to modify custody denied due to lack of supporting affidavits or documentation.

The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters. The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.

WILLS/TRUSTS 21: Plaintiff alleged the University failed to use the funds consistent with the terms of the trust.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.

What is Collaborative Divorce Family Law?

Coming to the end of a happy time is a challenge no one wants to deal with in life. The end of a marriage through a divorce can especially be a tough, emotional, and complicated period. Lawyers and judges deciding your future, remembering important...

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000