Blog

DIVORCE 17: Judgment states, obligations owed to each other shall be deemed a support obligation which is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy.

The parties were married later in life in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012.

The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff’s pension through a qualified domestic relation order (QDRO). The parties’ personal property settlement included a provision stating that all marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged.

The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled nondischargeability of obligations and debts, stating: to the extent either party is required by the terms of the Judgment to assume responsibility for paying certain debts, including obligations owed to each other, such obligation shall be deemed a support obligation under 11 U.S.C. Section 523 (a) (5) which is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy as to the other party.

The parties were in severe financial straits when they filed for divorce and anticipated that both would soon file for bankruptcy. At the July 3, 2013 settlement hearing, counsel for both parties indicated that bankruptcy was imminent. Plaintiff did file for bankruptcy and secured the discharge of his debts, including his half of those bills making up the marital debt.

Unlike plaintiff, and apparently against the advice of her attorney and the court, defendant did not file for bankruptcy and lost the marital home to foreclosure. Defendant sought court intervention and secured several adjustments to the spousal support award. In a 2015 motion to enforce the judgment and to show cause, defendant contended for the first time that plaintiff had not met his divorce judgment obligation to pay half of the marital debt.

While the debts may have been, and were discharged via a bankruptcy, further provisions of the Judgment of Divorce indicated that any debts set forth in the judgment were deemed support and not dischargeable. In essence, while a bankruptcy court could discharge the debts, they still remained owing to that party to whom they were payable as support, which is not dischargeable.

Nobody has ever disputed, Judge, that they could go into Bankruptcy Court and discharge those creditors, the credit card company, the mortgage. They could have those discharged, but they still owe the debts to each other. And defendant made it clear that she did not want to file bankruptcy. She had no intent of walking away from her obligations.  She’s still trying to make these payments. The court then ordered plaintiff to remit his share of the marital debt directly to defendant.

Were you just served with divorce papers? In order to protect your financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery and Burglary

Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of someone’s personal property by...

Do I Have To Go To Court If I Get A Divorce?

If you’re contemplating a divorce in Michigan, you probably have a lot of questions. One of the most intimidating aspects of getting a divorce in Michigan or anywhere else is the idea of having to appear in court. The laws for getting a...

Do I Need A Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement is not only for the wealthy people in society, like Hollywood celebrities and the like but also for any couple that brings personal assets, property, debts or children from a former relationship into the marriage. This...

PROBATE 19: Respondent argues she did not receive notice of hearing until five days before.

Respondent argues that she was denied her right to due process of law because she did not receive notice of the hearing until five days before it took place. Respondent argues that the five-day notice of hearing violated her right to due process. Due process generally requires that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action and to provide them an opportunity to be heard.

WILLS/TRUSTS 11: Allegations that a trustee violated his fiduciary duties.

MCL 700.7803 states that a trustee shall act as would a prudent person in dealing with the property of another, including following the standards of the Michigan prudent investor rule. If the trustee has special skills or is named trustee on the basis of representation of special skills or expertise, the trustee is under a duty to use those skills. MCL 700.7810 states that a trustee shall take reasonable steps to take control of and protect the trust property.

How Is Probation Violated?

If you are on probation, it means you have the judge's trust and have been allowed some level of freedom. Now you must work on ensuring you don’t violate your probation. You will need to abide by every term that the criminal court judge...

REAL ESTATE 25: Foreclosure and sheriff’s sale, redemption period expired.

In lieu of an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing essentially that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims related to the Property because plaintiff’s legal interest in the Property was extinguished through properly conducted foreclosure proceedings and the redemption period had expired and that none of plaintiff’s claims had legal merit.

I Was Arrested- Can I Question The Cop?

There are things that the police wouldn’t want people to know, and this is for the apparent reason that their investigations wouldn’t yield many convictions as they would like. The role of a police officer is to make arrests followed by...

REAL ESTATE 24: Court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for failure to join third party.

Defendants’ counter-complaint sought a declaration, among other things, that defendants had acquired a legal right to use the Drive as a means to access their property. But defendants did not add the LLC, the owner of the Drive, as a party to their suit. Consequently, the trial court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for easement rights because of the failure to join LLC—a necessary party.

Can Your Marriage Be Annulled?

An annulment officially erases a marriage. In Michigan, it is harder to get your marriage annulled than it is to get a divorce. The annulment procedure is very similar to the divorce process, and you need filing of the right documents and service...

Estate Planning- What Errors You Should Avoid?

Estate planning is a task financial experts say you should never neglect. Despite this, according to a 2017 survey, 6 in 10 Americans don't have a will. While not doing any estate planning is the biggest mistake of all, here are three...

REAL ESTATE 22: Court found denial of rezoning from multiple-family to commercial invalid.

Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the rezoning denial deprived it of its constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition. The briefs largely focused on whether defendant had treated the Property differently from other properties in the downtown area and whether it had legitimate reasons for doing so.

FAMILY LAW 24: Plaintiff-mother denied her motion to change parenting time.

The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 authorizes a trial court to issue custody and parenting-time orders that are in the child’s best interests. A showing of proper cause or change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting-time order. The movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists.

Custody of Pets In A Divorce

Divorce comes with confusion and mixed emotions. The question of who gets custody of pets may be even more confusing- especially since pets can begin to feel like family. Courts often look out for the interest of human children and allow for shared...

PROBATE 14: Trial court found involuntary mental health treatment appropriate.

To receive involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001, a petitioner is required to establish that respondent has a mental illness and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

BUSINESS LAW 6: Membership dispute in a LLC.

Based on the testimony, the trial court ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the assets of the LLC. The trial court also directed the LLC to make a distribution to plaintiff, which represented the 49% share owed to him to compensate for defendant’s distribution.

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