Providing Skilled Legal Assistance With Michigan Divorces
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.
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.
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.
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.
FAMILY LAW 80: The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to change domicile.
The trial court noted plaintiff’s testimony that the move was designed to provide KSJ with more stability, however, that since the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff’s employment changed again, with her new work hours resulting in frustrating the current parenting time exchange schedule.
DIVORCE 66: Defendant not entitled to any portion of the house’s appreciated value.
When one significantly assists in the acquisition or growth of a spouse’s separate asset, the court may consider the contribution as having a distinct value deserving of compensation.
DIVORCE 65: Both parties were ordered to cooperate with the supervised parenting time and reunification therapy.
The trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the children to mother, but awarding father supervised parenting time.
FAMILY LAW 78: Trial court denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.
Respondent moved to terminate the PPO. Respondent asserted that petitioner’s allegations were false. A proceeding on respondent’s motion to terminate was held with a family court referee, not a trial court judge.
FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.
For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.
DIVORCE 64: Appeal review of spousal support award for an abuse of discretion.
The court noted that the plaintiff, who worked part-time for her family-owned business, was also employed during the marriage in various roles with SE and contributed to its valuation through her direct efforts.
FAMILY LAW 76: Court issues PPOs for conduct that is prohibited under Michigan’s stalking statute.
Petitioner and respondent were previously married and were divorced at the time that the petitions were filed. Respondent’s parental rights to both RP and HP were terminated in May 2018. Respondent had little to no contact with the minor...
Divorce 63: Defendant’s spousal support conditioned upon whether plaintiff engages in contract work.
The trial court’s decision not to impute income to the work to render it essentially an obligation, and instead to condition spousal support payments on whether plaintiff chose to accept contract work was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.
DIVORCE 62: Changing schools can disrupt the custodial environment.
The parties were married for five and a half years with only one child, divorcing in December 2018. Plaintiff continued to live in the marital home in Washtenaw County after defendant moved out. Following the divorce, defendant moved to Fowlerville....
Divorce 61: Terminal illness should not play a significant role in the distribution of the parties’ property.
In this case, the trial court awarded plaintiff a lesser portion of the marital estate because of her illness and anticipated short life expectancy. The trial court awarded plaintiff a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting...