Providing Skilled Legal Assistance With Michigan Divorces
Were you just served with divorce papers? Do you believe that divorce is the only option left for your marriage?
In order to protect your parental and financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way.
At the Plymouth and Ann Arbor law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys have the skill and experience you need to address all family law issues that may arise during your divorce, including:
We are committed to providing each of our clients with quality legal representation and superior service. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced divorce lawyer at our firm, contact our Michigan law office.
Let Us Put Our Experience To Work For You
Our family law practice is headed by Bonita S. Hoffman, a knowledgeable divorce lawyer with more than 25 years of legal experience. Her experience includes extensive trial and appellate practice. Bonnie has intricate knowledge and experience in the area and has a strong knowledge of local courts and procedures.
Our focus is on resolving your dispute as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, while fully safeguarding your rights. If your divorce is not resolved before trial, we have the courtroom skills and experience to help you obtain the best possible outcome.
Call Now To Schedule A Free Initial Consultation
To schedule a free consultation with a Wayne County divorce attorney at Aldrich Legal Services, contact us.
From our main office in Plymouth, we serve clients throughout southeast Michigan. We are also available to meet with clients by appointment in our Ann Arbor office.
Speak with Bonita Hoffman - Divorce Attorney
Bonita has represented numerous clients in domestic relations proceedings involving divorce, child custody, parenting time and support. Bonita has also successfully represented both individual and corporate clients in insurance coverage and contractual disputes.
Latest Divorce Blog Posts
MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: DHHS filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over the child.
At the jurisdictional trial, H admitted that she had a substance abuse addiction that somewhat affected her ability to parent her children. The trial court ordered that CKM would remain with M until the custody hearing in a few months.
MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 96: The trial court did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.
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.
MICHIGAN DIVORCE 78: Mother and father were both unable to adequately parent the children.
Father and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence, and they both abused substances.
MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 93: Parents’ relationship had become so bitter court determined it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody.
The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established that a change of custody was in AH’s best interests, noting the parties were unable or unwilling to work together to reach an agreement on AH’s education and medical treatment.
MICHIGAN DIVORCE 21: Plaintiff file a motion to enforcement the judgment of divorce.
The referee recommended that the trial court grant plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the judgment and require the parties to comply with its provisions and further recommended that plaintiff’s request for attorney fees be preserved and awarded should plaintiff have to return to court.
MICHIGAN DIVORCE 76: Defendant had not exercised his parenting time with the children to warrant the award of any child support amount.
Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and child support. Plaintiff characterized the failed parenting-time arrangement as newly discovered evidence that negated her child support obligation.
DIVORCE 75: The trial court agreed that the long morning commute on school days satisfied the threshold burden for reconsidering custody.
The court expressed concern regarding plaintiff’s failure to appreciate how her actions left the children in a position of having to keep secrets from defendant, caused them uncertainty about their future schooling, and made them feel guilty for telling defendant the truth.
DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.
Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions.
DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.
The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration.
DIVORCE 72: Defendant asserts the trial court failed to acknowledge the seven-day rule.
MCR 2.602(B)(3), the so-called seven-day rule, allows a party to serve a copy of the proposed judgment or order on the other parties, with a notice to them that it will be submitted to the court for signing if no written objections to its accuracy or completeness are filed with the court clerk within 7 days after service of the notice.