Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 67: The parties agreed to submit their post judgment of divorce issues to binding arbitration.

In this case plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The parties ultimately reached a settlement agreement regarding the division of the marital estate, which included multiple parcels of real estate. The trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce. In relevant part, the consent judgment required defendant to transfer two parcels of real estate to plaintiff within 10 days of the entry of the judgment. Defendant was awarded the former marital home, but the parties agreed that plaintiff would be permitted to rent it.

In August 2019, defendant moved the trial court to enforce the consent judgment, arguing that plaintiff owed unpaid rent and utilities. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had failed to disclose outstanding debt remaining on the two parcels of real property that were awarded to her in the settlement.

Binding Arbitration

The parties agreed to submit their post judgment of divorce issues to binding arbitration. The arbitration agreement broadly granted the arbitrator the authority to decide the post judgment of divorce issues that were pending before the trial court.

In this case, the arbitrator repeatedly referenced the consent judgment. In relevant part, the arbitrator noted that the consent judgment provided that the parties had made full disclosures, and the arbitrator found that defendant had failed to disclose certain debts relating to the real property that was transferred to plaintiff. The arbitrator also found that defendant’s failure to disclose this debt was an intentional act.

Arbitration Award

The arbitrator issued an award after holding an evidentiary hearing. The defendant was required to pay plaintiff a net sum. This amount included $4,000 in attorney fees, which the arbitrator ordered because defendant had unnecessarily increased the cost and duration of the litigation by making false arguments and by intentionally failing to comply with the consent judgment.

Skilled Legal Assistance with Divorce

We help with all issues of divorce, including post judgment of divorce issues. We are committed to providing each of our clients with quality legal representation and superior service. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced divorce lawyer at our firm, contact our Michigan law office.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

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.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

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