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 April 19, 2013 hearing, the trial court, after hearing the parties’ arguments, stated that it would take the matter under advisement and compare the judgment with the transcript. Thereafter, the trial court entered the judgment of divorce.

Disputes between the parties continued. Ultimately, on February 20, 2019, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment. Defendant maintains that his objections to the original judgment of divorce were not properly resolved.

Defendants Objections

Defendant argued his primary objection was that his attorney at the time was not authorized to enter into the settlement. But at the hearing at which the settlement was entered on the record, defendant under oath stated that he agreed with the settlement.

Grounds for Relief from Judgment

Defendant filed a motion in 2019 for relief from judgment of divorce. Under MCR 2.612(C)(1), there are six grounds for relief from judgment. The first three must be brought within one year, and the others must be brought within a reasonable time.

No court would think six years later is within a reasonable time. But even if it were a reasonable amount of time, in this case, the Court would still deny the motion because there was an agreement placed on the record.

Advice to Clients Facing Divorces

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with divorces. Our firm is committed to helping you find resolutions, allowing you to move on with your life in a positive way. In order to protect your rights, it is important to have an experienced attorney.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

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

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...