Now Accepting New Clients!

MICHIGAN CRIMINAL 20: Respondent found of criminal contempt for violating the PPO.

Respondent was in a relationship with petitioner’s husband, which petitioner did not know until she intercepted a text message from respondent to her husband. After that, respondent and petitioner began communicating, exchanging written messages and voice messages via Facebook Messenger over a five-month period. The exchanges became increasingly hostile.

Petition for PPO

According to petitioner, respondent sent petitioner’s husband a picture of herself holding a big knife and a text that read: this is for y’all. Petitioner, provoked by respondent’s picture and text, filed a petition for a PPO against respondent. That same day, the trial court issued a PPO stating that such an order was appropriate because respondent had participated in repeated threatening and harassing behavior against petitioner.

By its terms, the PPO was immediately enforceable and would remain in effect until March 3, 2022.

Motion to Terminate PPO

Respondent moved to terminate the PPO, so a hearing on that motion was scheduled.

After filing the motion to terminate, respondent then drove a friend to petitioner’s home, to serve petitioner with the motion. When respondent arrived at petitioner’s house, she parked in front of a neighbor’s house. Respondent stayed in her car as her friend walked to petitioner’s porch and introduced herself to petitioner as someone from the court. Respondent’s friend attempted to serve petitioner with the motion, but petitioner refused to accept the paperwork.

Petitioner informed respondent’s friend that respondent could not be on her property. At this point, respondent left her car, walked to stand on petitioner’s driveway, and yelled at her friend to place the paperwork in petitioner’s mailbox. When petitioner informed respondent that she was calling the police, respondent dismissed her. The interaction lasted three to four minutes, and a recording of the interaction, as well as a picture showing respondent standing on petitioner’s driveway, was captured by petitioner’s house camera, and provided to law-enforcement officers.

Trial Court

The trial court explained that there were three matters scheduled for review: (1) petitioner’s motion and order to show cause for contempt for violating a personal protection order; (2) petitioner’s motion to increase the restrictions on contact; and (3) respondent’s motion to terminate the personal protection order.

The trial court conducted the show-cause hearing, which resulted in a finding of criminal contempt for violating the PPO. The trial court sentenced respondent to a 7- day jail term and a $100 fine but suspended the jail term absent further violations of the PPO and directed respondent to have her fingerprints taken.

The trial court ruled that it was not granting the order to expand the PPO and was terminating the PPO for failure to meet the legal burden because circumstances did not exist which would continue the term of the PPO. The court believed it was not a matter for a personal protection order. Neither petitioner or respondent was afraid or intimidated or harassed. They were harassing each other. But the trial court stated that the termination of the PPO does not negate the contempt finding because the PPO was in effect at the time respondent violated it. Thus, the suspended sentence of 7 days in jail and the $100 fine remained in place.

Skilled Criminal Defense

When you are facing criminal charges, no matter how seemingly minor, it is important to quickly secure effective legal representation. As a client of Aldrich Legal Services, you will benefit from working with Michigan criminal lawyers who have defended thousands of clients.

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