Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.

In this case, Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance stating that she and defendant lived together as husband and wife for several decades until defendant suffered a stroke that required his placement in a nursing home. Plaintiff further alleged that if she ever became disabled her income and assets will be insufficient to support herself if the Defendant’s income and assets would be used to pay for his care in the nursing home or long-term care facility. But once on Medicaid, 100% of Defendant’s care needs will be met by his Medicaid benefits.

Support Order

Plaintiff asked the court to order defendant to pay spousal support in the amount of the total marital estate and assign his social security income to plaintiff. The parties stipulated to entry of a support order and, after a perfunctory hearing on the matter, the trial court entered the parties’ proposed order.

Reconsideration of Support Order

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) moved for reconsideration of the support order. DHHS argued that the parties were attempting to evade Medicaid policy regarding eligibility for, and the extent of, long-term care benefit which were available only to those with minimal financial resources and that this Court had previously disapproved of similar schemes undertaken in probate proceedings. DHHS further argued that the support order did not comport with certain statutes and court rules governing separate maintenance actions or caselaw requiring equitable distribution of marital assets.

Trial Court

The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff and defendant were the only proper parties in this action for separate maintenance. There was no suggestion that DHHS conspired with either party to defraud the other, so DHHS’s involvement in this case does not fall within the narrow fraud exception for third-party joinder.

Like any other person claiming to be adversely affected by the support order, DHHS had to pursue a remedy through means other than involvement in the divorce proceedings.

Skilled Legal Assistance with Divorces

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. Our focus is on resolving your dispute as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, while fully safeguarding your rights. If your divorce is not resolved before trial, we have the courtroom skills and experience to help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

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.

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