Now Accepting New Clients!

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 96: The trial court did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

The plaintiff and defendant were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce entered in Virginia. The Virginia court granted defendant $2,000 in monthly spousal support until the death of either party or until defendant cohabited with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for a period of one year or more.

Out-of-State Spousal-Support Order

During the pendency of the divorce, defendant moved to Michigan and started dating B. Plaintiff registered the out-of-state spousal-support order in Michigan and moved in the Michigan Court to terminate spousal support because defendant cohabited with B for a period over a year or more.

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

Michigan has adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

(1) A support order or income-withholding order issued in another state, or a foreign support order is registered when the order is filed in the registering tribunal of this state.

(2) A registered support order issued in another state, or a foreign country is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a tribunal of this state shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered support order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction.

Trial Court

The trial court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state spousal-support order. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to terminate spousal support. The trial court correctly determined that it did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

Family Law & Divorce in Michigan

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes.

Our firm is committed to helping you find resolutions to all your family law needs, allowing you to move on with your life in a positive way.

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