The court ruled that title to the land prevails and that once the deed was signed, the property became the undivided whole interest for both the decedent and appellee and became appellee’s property upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, the court concluded that the prenuptial agreement did not have any impact on the property rights of appellee in this case.
The party requesting the change of domicile of the minor child has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the change is warranted.
The fact that plaintiff offered defendant the RFR for numerous Tuesday overnights over the course of approximately nine months does not support defendant’s position that a change of circumstances or proper cause has arisen.
The court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.
Defendant’s attorney stated that the total fees incurred by both sides are far beyond what he usually sees in divorce cases. Regarding the reasonableness of five depositions, he testified that he has not conducted five depositions in an average divorce case in the last few years.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that defendant had not established proper cause or a change in circumstances as required under the standards.
In essence, while a bankruptcy court could discharge the debts, they still remained owing to that party to whom they were payable as support, which is not dischargeable.
CPS informed defendant that his repeated calls and complaints against the Plaintiff-mother, in which there was not a preponderance of evidence to support the complaint, are ‘counting against him’ at this point.
Despite having signed the proposed divorce judgment, defendant filed an answer to the divorce complaint on February 28, 2017, and on March 2, 2017, she filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for entry of proofs and judgment, along with a motion to restore her possession of the marital home. Defendant claimed arguments premised on unconscionability.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to determine ALF’s established custodial environment before it modified the custody order. Plaintiff correctly states that the trial court failed to determine the established custodial environment.
Pursuant to the Friend of the Court Act, MCL 552.501 et seq., when a domestic relations motion is submitted to a referee for hearing, a party who files a timely objection to the referee’s recommendation is entitled to have the matter reviewed by the trial court. MCL 552.507(4).
The circuit court awarded defendant sole legal and physical custody of the minor children and awarded grandparenting time to plaintiffs.
The court found that plaintiff would rather have her children in daycare than have them spend time with their father.
The appeals court concurred with the findings of the trial court that the assertions which provided the basis for defendant’s motion are within the bounds of normal life circumstances typical of 13-year-old teenagers.
The appeals court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff’s conduct in filing for divorce in another county while the Oakland County divorce judgment was still in effect violated that judgment of divorce.
In this case, respondent’s counsel failed to notify respondent of his intent to withdraw from representation, and the court failed to notify respondent of the date of the termination trial.
With regard to the trial court’s order concerning preschool placement, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by issuing the order without conducting an evidentiary hearing, making findings of fact, or analyzing the best-interest factors.
In this case, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it made a change from sole to joint legal custody without determining the established custodial environment.
A contempt proceeding for failure to comply with a parenting time order is generally considered civil in nature.
The threshold to changing custody, finding a change of circumstance or proper cause are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.
This case involves parties who, after living in Michigan for several years, returned to their native country of India in 2014 with their three children. In 2016, plaintiff returned to Michigan and filed for divorce.
In this case, the court is asked whether a presumed father may, in a divorce action, challenge his paternity of a child born during the course of the marriage despite the fact that he did not raise the issue within three years of the child’s birth.
The petitioner has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the noncustodial parent’s rights is warranted. In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find that the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) are both satisfied.
Although the trial court recognized that a marital estate will normally be divided 50/50, it elected to award 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.
The Court recognizes that the object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished; spousal support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.
Given her noncompliance with her service plan and her lack of progress in addressing her serious mental illnesses, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable expectation that respondent will be able to provide proper care.
The referee explained as follows: Michigan law is clear that a minor child cannot have two legal fathers.
The trial court ordered that the child finish kindergarten at the school that he was attending and enroll in the school halfway between for the following school year beginning in the fall of 2017.
Before modifying an existing custody order, a trial court is required to find that the party seeking to modify the custody order has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, proper cause or change of circumstances as set forth in MCL 722.27.
The court ruled that the husband’s home was a premarital asset belonging to him alone, denied the wife’s request for spousal support and awarded minimal attorney fees.
With respect to a request to modify child custody, a trial court is required to determine whether there is an established custodial environment with one or both parents before making any custody determination.
An established custodial environment is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.
The 10-year statute of limitations on a claim relating to a property settlement in a judgment of divorce begins to run at the time the claim accrues and that the claim accrues when the money owing under the property settlement comes due.
Plaintiff and defendant were involved in a romantic relationship, but never married. After the relationship ended, plaintiff sued defendant, seeking repayment for $68,784.50 in payments he claims he made for her living expenses.
In this case, defendant appeals order requiring him to pay plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $22,000, consisting of $10,000 for plaintiff’s divorce attorney and $12,000 for a business attorney.
Plaintiff moved to set aside the revised proposed QDRO, arguing that it was time-barred under the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in MCL 600.5809(3).
In this case defendant (father) appeals the trial court denying his motion to modify custody of the parties’ three minor children.
Plaintiff ex-wife appeals trial court’s order awarding defendant ex-husband over $22,000 in attorney fees and costs incurred by defendant in addressing plaintiff’s contempt of court for violation of the parties’ divorce judgment.
When a child is in relative placement, a trial court must explicitly address whether termination is appropriate in light of the children’s placement with relatives.
The trial court’s opinion and order terminated respondent’s parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.51(6) (failure to comply with a support order for two years or more and failure to visit, contact, or communicate with the child for two years or more).
