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 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.
DIVORCE 71: Court determined house was marital property and defendant was not entitled to spousal support.
In addition, the trial court noted that plaintiff did not have the means to pay spousal support because she had substantial debt and was financially supporting her unemployed adult son.
Family Law 84: Trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause.
The petitioner bears the burden of establishing reasonable cause for issuance of a PPO, and of establishing a justification for the continuance of a PPO at a hearing on the respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.
DIVORCE 70: Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children.
Defendant filed an answer, countering that it was in the children’s best interests for the parties to share joint legal and joint physical custody. During the divorce proceedings, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children, which the trial court granted.
DIVORCE 69: Trial court enforcement of marriage settlement agreement drafted prior to divorce.
The parties had several meetings about dissolving their marriage and dividing their assets. These conversations culminated in a marriage settlement agreement, drafted by D, which the parties both signed in June 2016.
DIVORCE 68: A change that substantially reduces the time a parent spends with a child could potentially cause a change in the established custodial environment.
If the proposed change alters the established custodial environment, the party seeking the change must demonstrate that the change is in the child’s best interests.
DIVORCE 67: The parties agreed to submit their post judgment of divorce issues to binding arbitration.
The arbitration agreement broadly granted the arbitrator the authority to decide the post judgment of divorce issues that were pending before the trial court.
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.