Now Accepting New Clients!

Trial court properly denied pro se motions for change of custody, disqualification of trial judge and motion for contempt

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-father's motion for change of custody of the parties' minor child, his motion for the disqualification of the trial judge, or his motion for the plaintiff-mother to be held in contempt of court. On appeal, the court first found that all of defendant's arguments were abandoned. Nevertheless, it addressed each one in turn. First, it rejected his judicial bias claim, finding that he provided no factual basis for his claim, and failed to satisfy his burden of overcoming the presumption of impartiality. It also rejected his claim that the trial court should have found plaintiff in contempt for misleading the court, violating court orders, and knowingly committing perjury. "The record reveals that father, rather than submitting affidavits, supported his ex parte contempt motion with his own unsworn statements, unsworn letters written by others, and documents not sworn to in an affidavit. Accordingly, there was no affidavit showing a 'sufficient foundation of competent evidence, and legitimate inferences therefrom,' before the trial court that would have justified the court in furthering the contempt proceedings by issuing a show cause order against mother." It next held that the trial court's finding that there was no change of circumstances or proper cause to support a change in custody was not against the great weight of the evidence. "None of the allegations raised by father demonstrated the type of circumstances that would have had a significant effect on the child's life or well-being. At most, father's allegations amount to nothing more than normal life changes for the child or minor inconveniences to father in his attempts to interact with mother. The trial court's finding did not 'clearly preponderate in the opposite direction.'" Finally, the court found that defendant abandoned his claim for damages by failing to support or argue his claim, and did not preserve his constitutional claims. Affirmed.

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

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