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 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...
DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t
Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce. Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...
DIVORCE 52: The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant ex-wife attorney fees.
Plaintiff and defendant divorced after a 36-year marriage. The divorce trial took place on October 1, 2014, and the court made a dispositional ruling from the bench on October 30, 2014. In the original dispositional ruling, the court erroneously...
DIVORCE 51: Holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff-ex-wife’s requested calculation of interest payments, the court vacated the ruling and remanded the case.
The Plaintiff and defendant were married in October 1994. Plaintiff filed for divorce on February 4, 2004, and the trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce on January 5, 2005. The judgment referenced a property settlement agreement, under...
DIVORCE 48: The trial court may only determine whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous, not whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was correct.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, and following mediation, the parties reached a transcribed mediation agreement in June 2014. The mediator read an outline of a property settlement agreement, the terms of which were to be...
DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS
DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS
BACKGROUND
The parties married in 1978, and they have three adult children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in September 2018, by which time both parties had reached retirement age. The property issues in dispute should have been relatively...
DIVORCE 44: A POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY WHEN IT WAS MOSTLY NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE AND WAS NOT CREATED IN CONTEMPLATION OF A FUTURE DIVORCE
BACKGROUND
The parties met and began cohabitating in 2003. In 2011, plaintiff and defendant began discussing marriage. The parties had lived together for years, but each had their own separate businesses and assets. Thus,...
DIVORCE 42: LANGUAGE IN THE PARTIES’ JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND MUST BE INTERPRETED AS WRITTEN
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the divorce of the parties. The parties mediated a settlement and the Court entered a Judgment of Divorce based on that agreement. The provision of the judgment on appeal concerns plaintiff’s...
DIVORCE 41: Grounds for relief from judgment of divorce must be brought within a reasonable time.
This divorce action commenced in 2011 and the parties reached a settlement in 2013. Plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment under the seven-day rule, MCR 2.602(B)(3). Defendant filed objections.
Judgment of Divorce Entered
Ultimately, at an...