Now Accepting New Clients!



The parties married in 1978, and they have three adult children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in September 2018, by which time both parties had reached retirement age. The property issues in dispute should have been relatively straightforward. Yet, pretrial litigation lasted approximately 10 months, in large part because defendant refused to comply with court orders regarding mediation, payment of temporary spousal support, and appraisals of property. As a result, the trial court held defendant in contempt, entered a default against him, accepted plaintiff’s representations of the value of real and personal property, and awarded plaintiff $1,092 in attorney fees related to the contempt proceedings. Following a one-day bench trial, the trial court ordered the marital home sold, and allocated the debts and assets between the parties.


A claim that the trial court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo.


Defendant maintains that the trial court’s orders were void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. These arguments lack merit. Jurisdiction is conferred by MCL 552.6(1), which states: A complaint for divorce may be filed in the circuit court upon the allegation that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved. In the complaint the plaintiff shall make no other explanation of the grounds for divorce than by the use of the statutory language. Under the no-fault divorce statutes, once the trial court has jurisdiction, the trial court’s authority includes the power to divide real and personal property, MCL 552.19, including rights to a pension, MCL 552.18. More generally, a divorce “shall be conducted in the same manner as other suits in courts of equity; and the court shall have the power to award issues, to decree costs, and to enforce its decrees, as in other cases.” MCL 552.12. This includes the power to hold a litigant in contempt and to enter a default. A court possesses inherent authority to enforce its own directives. A divorce case is equitable in nature, and a court of equity molds its relief according to the character of the case; once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction, it will do what is necessary to accord complete equity and to conclude the controversy. Ultimately, “[c]ircuit courts have jurisdiction and power to make any order proper to fully effectuate the circuit courts’ jurisdiction and judgments.” MCL 600.611. It follows that in this case, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the trial court had jurisdiction over the divorce.


Defendant contends that the trial court erred by holding him in contempt. Primarily, defendant appears to assert that he did not need to obey the trial court’s orders because the orders were void; defendant also appears to believe he was justified in not complying with orders because the orders were wrong. These arguments lack merit. “A trial court is empowered with the inherent right to punish all contempts of court.” [T]he primary purpose of the contempt power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts. Because the power to hold a party in contempt is so great, it carries with it the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously and only when the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown. Contempt can be either criminal or civil. When, as in this case, the court employs its contempt power “to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation or to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred by the contemptuous behavior, including attorney fees, the proceedings are civil.” Id. By statute, a trial court may hold a party in contempt for failing to pay temporary support in an action for divorce. MCL 600.1701(f). More generally, a trial court may also hold a party in contempt for disobeying “any lawful order, decree, or process of the court.” MCL 600.1701(g). An order entered by a court without jurisdiction is absolutely void and need not be obeyed. But “[a] person may not disregard a court order simply on the basis of his subjective view that the order is wrong or will be declared invalid on appeal.” This exercise of the trial court’s contempt powers, in light of defendant’s repeated violations of court orders, was not an abuse of discretion, particularly in light of the trial court’s attempts to employ less drastic measures to compel defendant’s compliance.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have property settlement issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parties throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of divorce related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000




REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 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...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

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