Now Accepting New Clients!

Family Law 84: Trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause.

Petitioner filed a petition for an ex parte PPO on July 13, 2020. In her petition, petitioner alleged that on July 12, 2020, she had a physical altercation with respondent where he attempted to prevent her from contacting anyone with her phone and took her to another room by her wrists. Petitioner stated that the police were called, and they sent a report of domestic assault to the prosecutor. Petitioner also alleged that respondent used intimidation and fear to get his way during their marriage, and once threatened to kill her if she called the police on him.

Ex Parte PPO

The trial court issued an ex parte PPO for petitioner against respondent

Respondent subsequently filed a motion to terminate this PPO, denying petitioner’s allegations and asserting that her petition was premised on a lie regarding the facts of the July 12, 2020 altercation. Respondent attached the relevant police report, which showed that the reporting police officer sought a charge of domestic assault against petitioner and forwarded that information to the prosecutor’s office. The report indicated that the police officer spoke with petitioner, and petitioner admitted to punching respondent in the face to regain control of her phone.

Petitioner opposed respondent’s motion to terminate. Petitioner alleged that respondent had a long history of abusive behavior, including a domestic violence conviction against an ex-girlfriend and the perpetration of threats and violence against petitioner. The trial court denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Cause for Issuance of PPO

Pursuant to MCL 600.2950(4), the trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the individual to be restrained or enjoined may commit 1 or more of a specified list of acts.

(a) Entering onto premises.

(b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a named individual.

(c) Threatening to kill or physically injure a named individual.

 Any other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence.

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing reasonable cause for issuance of a PPO, and of establishing a justification for the continuance of a PPO at a hearing on the respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Assistance with PPOs

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes. We act quickly when allegations of domestic violence are made to file for or contest personal protection orders.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services to schedule a consultation with a lawyer who is dedicated to protecting your interests.

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