Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.

The parties were married for 22 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. They had previously owned a McDonald’s franchise in Michigan and enjoyed a high standard of living. In 2015, they sold the franchise. Attempts at starting new businesses in Florida failed, and eventually the couple moved back to Michigan and filed for bankruptcy. At the time of trial, no significant marital assets remained, and the parties had each obtained employment. The parties had nine children together. Only the four youngest children remained minors when judgment was entered, and those children resided with plaintiff.

Custody of Children

The trial court concluded that the parties could not agree on anything related to parenting and that plaintiff would have sole legal custody of the minor children. The trial court also awarded plaintiff primary physical custody of the children. Defendant was granted limited unsupervised parenting time, mainly eight daytime hours every other Sunday. The trial court found that both parties were employed, and that spousal support was not warranted.

Tax Debt

The court additionally determined that a tax debt generated by the sale of the McDonald’s franchise would be divided equally between the parties.

This debt was incurred from the sale of the McDonald’s restaurant and the parties chose to invest the proceeds in a failed business venture rather than paying the taxes due on the sales proceeds. Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions. The court would find that each party is equally responsible for the tax debt.

Legal Assistance with Michigan Divorces

In order to protect your parental and financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way. 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 WILLS/TRUSTS 33: Trustees required to provide notice informing recipients that they may challenge the validity of a trust and the period allowed for bringing such a challenge.

The notice sent clearly advised her that if she wanted to contest the validity of the Trust in a judicial proceeding, the law required her to do so within six months from the date of the letter. Nothing in the statute requires a trustee to inform the recipients of the specific legal consequences of not acting during the time allowed.

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 97: The court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff.

The trial court found that plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing that a constructive trust was necessary to prevent defendant from being unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendant to convey his interest in the property to plaintiff.

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.

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