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.
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...
DIVORCE 60: Plaintiff retains the right to oppose recognition and enforcement of the India divorce decree.
Plaintiff retains the right to oppose recognition and enforcement of the India divorce decree. However, whether the India divorce decree should be recognized and enforced in Michigan can only be determined after it has been issued.
FAMILY LAW 73: The judgment of divorce included two alternative parenting-time provisions.
The parties married in 2013 while in Florida. Plaintiff was originally from Michigan, and defendant was originally from New Jersey. The child, JV, was born in 2014. The parties separated approximately one year later. The Florida courts granted the...
DIVORCE 59: A consent judgment of divorce is to be construed as a contract.
A consent judgment of divorce is to be construed as a contract and to be applied as such. Likewise, a property settlement agreement in a divorce is construed as a contract.
DIVORCE 58: The court found defendant largely at fault because of his infidelity.
The court also found that defendant was largely at fault for the dissolution of the marriage because of his infidelity. The court determined that a 55/45 split of the marital estate in favor of plaintiff was appropriate considering the relevant factors.
DIVORCE 57: Court determined 10% interest gifted by father was marital property.
In July 1999, plaintiff’s father gifted to plaintiff a 10% interest in Business. Shortly thereafter, in August 1999, plaintiff and defendant were married. Throughout the marriage, plaintiff and defendant maintained separate bank accounts. When...
DIVORCE 56: The court held that the plaintiff ex-husband failed to show how the arbitration was void or without authority.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s March 6, 2019 judgment of divorce. The judgment of divorce, among other things, incorporated the awards pertaining to spousal support, property division, and costs and fees that had been...
DIVORCE 54: The trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing or allowing her to support her request.
This case arises from the dissolution of plaintiff and defendant’s marriage. Defendant was a stay-at-home parent for the parties’ two children during the majority of the marriage. The children were adults at the time of the separation...