Michigan Divorce Lawyer, custody disputes, child support modification, spousal support, property and debt division, child visitation enforcement, and parental alienation.


	Michigan Divorce Attorneys & Counselors
	20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 170, Southfield, MI 48076, phone/248-737-8410 fax/866-728-4718 email/christopherkohler@kohlerlaw.net

Sign Our Guest Book and a Michigan Divorce Lawyer will contact you for a free initial consultation.

Let Us Be Your Michigan Divorce Lawyers...

Click Here/Michigan Divorce Law References

Kohler & Associates, P.C. is a firm of divorce lawyers in Michigan handling family law cases of all types including divorce, custody, child support, spousal support, support modification, parenting time modification and paternity. We are centrally located at 20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 170, Southfield, MI 48076, and can be contacted by phone at 248-737-8410 or fax at 1-866-728-4718/christopherkohler@kohlerlaw.net

Michigan Divorce Lawyers: Expertise in SoutheasternMichigan Courts...

Kohler & Associates, P.C. are divorce lawyers serving clients in the following Michigan counties: Oakland, Wayne, Macomb, Livingstone, and Washtenaw counties. When you need a Michigan divorce attorney, Michigan custody lawyer, or Michigan child support lawyer, Kohler & Associates, P.C. can give you the experienced, aggressive representation necessary to achieve your legal objectives.

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer with expertise in Oakland County.

** PLEASE DESCRIBE THIS IMAGE **

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer with expertise in Macomb County.

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer with expertise in Wayne County.

Case Preparation: Cutting Edge Technology for Your Michigan Divorce...

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer who integrates technology into your Michigan Divorce. At Kohler & Associates, P.C., we have embraced the digital revolution to enhance and improve our services. As divorce lawyers practicing in Michigan, the following are just a few of the ways we use technology for the benefit of our clients:

Michigan Divorce Lawyer: Web Based Case Investigation Center.

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer that investigates your case. Our client's are able to submit evidence using our website so they can prevail in Court over factual disputes. This is not to be confused with divorce kits or do it yourself divorce packages. We use our website to further leverage the amount of access our clients have to us. As a result, our client's Michigan Divorce Cases are investigated at the beginning of the case, not on the eve of trial. We get you ready for trial early, so you don't have to go to trial later!

Technology in the Courtroom

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer who brings a digital arsenal of law and facts into Court with us, or anywhere else our client's need us to go during the course of their case. Legal costs are controlled because having fingertip access to all aspects of our clients' cases helps us to prevent delay either by our opponents, or even from the Court!

Digital Case Files/Electronic Filing

** PLEASE DESCRIBE THIS IMAGE **

All client files are scanned and kept as bookmarked PDF files like the image displayed above. Nothing gets lost and we always have every aspect of our client's case at our fingertips.

Technology/Controlling Costs

You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer who integrates computers at every stage of representation. This makes us faster and better informed than our opponents. You need a Michigan Divorce Lawyer who helps you to control escalating legal costs and expedite your case.

Would you rather have your limited funds applied toward shuffling paper, or obtaining rulings from the Court that can help you make better informed decisions at the negotiating table?

Whether you need a Michigan custody lawyer, Michigan divorce attorney or Michigan child support lawyer, case preparation is faster and easier; and litigation costs are controlled.

Michigan Divorce and Family Law References:

Current Law: The following table is a work in progress providing you with the Divorce Act, or chapter 552 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. We will be adding to the this table until all the provisions of the Michigan Divorce Act are represented here.

In general, property and debts accumulated through the direct or indirect efforts of the parties during the marriage are marital. Neither party is inherently entitled to a greater share of the marital assets or responsible for a greater share of the marital debts. Separate property should be awarded to the owner spouse.

Section 552.6

Complaint for divorce; filing; grounds; answer; judgment.

552.19 Restoration of real and personal estate to parties.

552.23 Michigan Judgment of divorce or separate maintenance; further award of real and personal estate; transmittal of payments to Michiganfamily independence agency; service fee; computation, payment, and disposition; failure or refusal to pay service fee; contempt; Michigan "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" defined.

Sec. 23.

(1) Upon entry of a Michigan judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage as are committed to the care and custody of either party, the court may further award to either party the part of the real and personal estate of either party and spousal support out of the real and personal estate, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as the court considers just and reasonable, after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case. (We are some of the few divorce lawyers in Michigan that understand that a 50/50 property split, although most common, is not a hard and fast rule. We are the Michigan divorce attorney's who can best evaluate what an equitable division of your marital estate should be)

(2) Upon certification by a Michigan county family independence agency that a complainant or petitioner in a proceeding under this chapter is receiving public assistance either personally or for children of the marriage, payments received by the Michigan friend of the court or the Michigan state disbursement unit for the support and education of the children or maintenance of the party shall be transmitted to the Michigan family independence agency.

(3) To reimburse the county for the cost of enforcing a spousal or child support order or a parenting time order, the court shall order the payment of a service fee of $2.00 per month, payable semiannually on each January 2 and July 2. The service fee shall be paid by the person ordered to pay the Michigan spousal or Michigan child support. The service fee shall be computed from the beginning date of the Michigan spousal or Michigan child support order and shall continue while the Michigan spousal or Michigan child support order is operative. The service fee shall be paid 6 months in advance on each due date, except for the first payment, which shall be paid at the same time the Michigan spousal or Michigan child support order is filed, and covers the period of time from that month until the next calendar due date. A Michigan order or Michigan judgment of Divorce that provides for the payment of temporary or permanent spousal or child support that requires collection by the Michigan friend of the court or the Michigan SDU shall provide for the payment of the service fee. Upon its own motion, a Michigan court may amend such a Michigan order or Michigan judgment of Divorce for the payment of temporary or permanent Michigan spousal or Michigan child support to provide for the payment of the service fee in the amount provided by this subsection, upon proper notice to the person ordered to pay the Michigan spousal or Michigan child support. The service fees shall be turned over to the county treasurer and credited to the general fund of the county. If the court appoints the Michigan friend of the court custodian, receiver, trustee, or escrow agent of assets owned by the husband and wife, or either of them, the court may fix the amount of the fee for such service, to be turned over to the county treasurer and credited to the general fund of the county. The court may hold in contempt a person who fails or refuses to pay a fee ordered under this subsection.

(4) As used in this act, "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" means the entity established in section 6 of the office of child support act, 1971 PA 174, MCL 400.236.

Act 259: Judgments of Michigan Divorce or Separate Maintenance

AN ACT to provide that judgments of Michigan divorce and Michigan judgments of separate maintenance shall make provision in satisfaction of the claims of the wife in the property of the husband and in satisfaction of the claims of the husband and wife in contracts of insurance and annuity upon the life of the husband or wife, and in satisfaction of claims of the husband and wife in or to any pension, annuity, retirement allowance, or accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system, including any rights or contingent rights in and to unvested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; and to change the tenure of lands owned by husband and wife in case of Michigan divorce, and to provide for the disposition or partition of such lands or the proceeds thereof.

552.101 Judgment of Michigan divorce or separate maintenance; provision in lieu of dower; determining rights of wife or husband in and to policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity; discharge of liability on policy; determination of rights; assignment of rights.

(1) When any Michigan judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance is granted in any of the courts of this state, the court granting the judgment shall include in it a provision in lieu of the dower of the wife in the property of the husband, which shall be in full satisfaction of all claims that the wife may have in any property that the husband owns or may own in the future or in which he may have any interest.

(2) Each Michigan judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the wife in and to the proceeds of any policy or contract of life insurance, endowment, or annuity upon the life of the husband in which the wife was named or designated as beneficiary, or to which the wife became entitled by assignment or change of beneficiary during the marriage or in anticipation of marriage. If the Michigan judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance does not determine the rights of the wife in and to a policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity, the policy shall be payable to the estate of the husband or to the named beneficiary if the husband so designates. However, the company issuing the policy shall be discharged of all liability on the policy by payment of its proceeds in accordance with the terms of the policy unless before the payment the company receives written notice, by or on behalf of the insured or the estate of the insured, 1 of the heirs of the insured, or any other person having an interest in the policy, of a claim under the policy and the Michigan divorce.

(3) Each Michigan judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights of the husband in and to the proceeds of any policy or contract of life insurance, endowment, or annuity upon the life of the wife in which the husband was named or designated as beneficiary, or to which he became entitled by assignment or change of beneficiary during the marriage or in anticipation of marriage. If the Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan judgment of separate maintenance does not determine the rights of the husband in and to the policy of life insurance, endowment, or annuity, the policy shall be payable to the estate of the wife, or to the named beneficiary if the wife so designates. However, the company issuing the policy shall be discharged of all liability on the policy by payment of the proceeds in accordance with the terms of the policy unless before the payment the company receives written notice, by or on behalf of the insured or the estate of the insured, 1 of the heirs of the insured, or any other person having an interest in the policy, of a claim under the policy and the Michigan divorce.

(4) Each Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan judgment of separate maintenance shall determine all rights, including any contingent rights, of the husband and wife in and to all of the following:(a) Any vested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, (b) Any accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system, (c) In accordance with section 18 of 1846 RS 84, MCL 552.18, any unvested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits.

(5) For any Michigan divorce or Michigan separate maintenance action filed on or after September 1, 2006, if a Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan judgment of separate maintenance provides for the assignment of any rights in and to any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits shall be included in the assignment unless the Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes 1 or more components. Components include, but are not limited to, supplements, subsidies, early retirement benefits, postretirement benefit increases, surviving spouse benefits, and death benefits. This subsection shall apply regardless of the characterization of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefit as regular retirement, early retirement, disability retirement, death benefit, or any other characterization or classification, unless the Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes a particular characterization or classification.

552.102 Realty owned jointly or by entireties; effect of divorce without determination of ownership in decree.

Every husband and wife owning real estate as joint tenants or as tenants by entireties shall, upon being divorced, become tenants in common of such real estate, unless the ownership thereof is otherwise determined by the Michigan decree of divorce. (This is a common question that many divorce lawyers in Michigan are asked regarding whose name real property is purchased in. Regardless of whether real property is purchased in the husband's name or the wife's name, if it is purchased during the marriage, it is considered to be a part of the marital estate and therefore, subject to division by the court.)

552.103 Realty owned jointly or by entireties; bill of complaint, disposal, sale order, partition.

The bill of complaint or amendment thereto, or the answer or cross bill or amendment thereto, filed in any Michigan divorce proceeding may ask that the ownership of the lands described therein and owned by the parties to such suit as joint tenants or as tenants by entireties shall be determined by the decree of divorce, if granted, and in such case the court granting the divorce may award such lands to 1 or the other of said parties, or any part of it to either of them, or may order such lands to be sold under the direction of a circuit court commissioner, and the proceeds thereof divided between the parties in such proportion as the court shall order; or may appoint commissioners to partition such lands between said parties in the proportion fixed by the decree. The proceedings following the appointment of such commissioner shall conform to the law governing the partition of lands between tenants in common. (This is a common question that many divorce lawyers in Michigan are asked regarding whose name real property is purchased in. Regardless of whether real property is purchased in the husband's name or the wife's name, if it is purchased during the marriage, it is considered to be a part of the marital estate and therefore, subject to division by the court.)

552.104 Divorce decree; certified copy; recording.

A certified copy of any Michigan decree granted in a suit for Michigan divorce may be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of any county in Michigan.

552.121 Foreign divorce decree as basis of action at law.

In all cases where a Michigan decree for alimony has been rendered in another state in a case where the party against whom the decree was rendered was present in court or was personally served with process within the jurisdiction of the court, the alimony decreed upon the final hearing may be recovered in an action at law in Michigan, regardless of whether the same is decreed to be paid in 1 payment or in installments from time to time.

552.122 Stay of proceedings.

If the defendant in Michigan shows that he has made proper application in the court of the other state for a reduction or any further order in relation to the alimony in the courts of the other state, the court in this state may stay the proceedings in this state on such terms as it desires to impose.

552.123 Judgment; stay, amendment.

All Michigan judgments in such cases shall be stayed 60 days, and if during said term the defendant in this state presents satisfactory evidence of a change in the decree of the courts of the other state, the court may alter or amend its judgment as to it may seem proper and just.

552.151 Alimony or support and maintenance order in suit for divorce or separate maintenance; petition; punishment for neglect or violation.

In a suit for Michigan divorce or Michigan separate maintenance, if an order or decree for payment of temporary or permanent alimony, or of support and maintenance for minor children or for children who are 18 years of age or older, has been made, and if the party, plaintiff, or defendant, has appeared in person or by attorney or has been personally served with process within the jurisdiction of the court making the order or decree, then the court may punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, any neglect or violation of the order upon petition of the party whose rights may have been impaired, impeded, or prejudiced by neglect or violation.

552.152 Payments in default; motion; attachment; "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" defined.

(1) When a decree or order described in section 1 orders payments to be made to the clerk of the court, the friend of the court, or the state disbursement unit and a payment is in default, the party prejudiced may make a motion before the court showing by records in the clerk's or friend of the court's office, or otherwise, that the default has occurred, and the court may issue an attachment to arrest the party in default and bring the party immediately before the court to answer for the default.

(2) As used in this act, "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" means the entity established in section 6 of the office of child support act, 1971 PA 174, MCL 400.236.

552.153 Order for payment; demand or notice not necessity

No demand or notice of making the order for such payment shall be necessary in the cases enumerated in section 1.

552.154 Attachment; arrest, custody of party.

The attachment shall be executed by the sheriff of the county, or by any officer authorized to make such arrest, who shall arrest the party named therein and keep him in actual custody and bring him forthwith before the court issuing the attachment, and shall keep and detain him until the court shall make some further order.

552.156 Transition to centralized receipt and disbursement of support and fees.

The department, the SDU, and each office of the friend of the court shall cooperate in the transition to the centralized receipt and disbursement of support and fees. An office of the friend of the court shall continue to receive and disburse support and fees through the transition, based on the schedule developed as required by section 6 of the office of child support act, 1971 PA 174, MCL 400.236, and modifications to that schedule as the department considers necessary.

552.391 Divorced woman; change of name.

The circuit courts of this state, whenever a decree of divorce is granted, may, at the instance of the woman, whether complainant or defendant, decree to restore to her her birth name, or the surname she legally bore prior to her marriage to the husband in the Michigan divorce action, or allow her to adopt another surname if the change is not sought with any fraudulent or evil intent.

552.401 Property owned by spouse; award to party contributing to acquisition, improvement, or accumulation thereof; effect of decree.

The circuit court of this state may include in any Michigan decree of Michigan divorce or of Michigan separate maintenance entered in the circuit court appropriate provisions awarding to a party all or a portion of the property, either real or personal, owned by his or her spouse, as appears to the court to be equitable under all the circumstances of the case, if it appears from the evidence in the case that the party contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property. The decree, upon becoming final, shall have the same force and effect as a quitclaim deed of the real estate, if any, or a bill of sale of the personal property, if any, given by the party's spouse to the party. (The issue of separate property is another question commonly asked of divorce lawyers in Michigan. Divorce lawyers in Michigan will tell you that the general rule is that separate property, whether brought to the marriage, or inherited during the marriage, remains the separate property of the party acquiring it. The exception to the rule is where a party contributes to the acquisition or improvement of the property, or, the property, is commingled with other assets in the marital estate. We are divorce lawyers who have been practicing divorce law in Michigan for over ten years. We can advise you what property is legitimately subject to division.)

552.402 Certified copy of decree; recording or filing.

A certified copy of any such decree may be recorded or filed in the office of the register of deeds of any county wherein any real estate or personal property described in such decree may be located.

552.455 Modification of order; application and notice; order void upon entry of judgment of divorce or separate maintenance.

An order entered under section 2 may be modified by the court upon proper application to the court and due notice to the opposite party. If a Michigan judgment of divorce or Michigan Judgment of separate maintenance is entered by a court having personal jurisdiction over the parties, an order entered under this act is null and void upon the effective date of the judgment.

Yeo v Yeo 214 Mich. App. 598, 543 NW2d 62

Plaintiff, Robert Vincent Yeo, appeals by leave granted from an order denying his motion to set aside a judgment of divorce and a subsequent order allowing defendant, Sheri Lynn Yeo, to sell the marital residence. We affirm in part, reverse and vacate in part, and dissolve the stay of [Page 600] proceedings entered by this Court upon the granting of leave to appeal.

A judgment of divorce was filed in the trial court on September 2, 1994. The judgment of divorce stated as follows under a heading entitled "Property Settlement":

It is further ordered and adjudged that the division of the marital property shall be reserved for future consideration of this Honorable Court.

The judgment of divorce was signed by defendant's attorney, who also signed plaintiff's attorney's name by consent. An order allowing plaintiff's attorney to withdraw was entered on September 1, 1994. On September 14, 1994, plaintiff's new attorney filed a motion to set aside the judgment of divorce. Plaintiff argued that his former attorney did not have authority to sign the judgment of divorce and that the judgment of divorce improperly reserved the property division for a later date. On October 5, 1994, the court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment of divorce. The court entered an order on October 21, 1994, allowing for the sale of the marital home and placement of the proceeds into a trust account pending a later resolution of the property issues. Plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal from these two orders. On November 21, 1994, this Court, Doctoroff, C.J., and Cavanagh and Fitzgerald, JJ., granted plaintiff's application for leave to appeal and stayed the proceedings in an unpublished order (Docket No. 179721).

Plaintiff argues that the court improperly bifurcated the proceedings when it granted a divorce judgment that reserved the division of property to a later date. We agree. Defendant correctly points [Page 601] out that MCL 552.19; MSA 25.99 and MCL 552.401; MSA 25.136 provide that the court "may" divide the property of a divorcing couple as a part of a judgment of divorce. On this basis, defendant then asserts that a bifurcation of a judgment of divorce from a property settlement is permissible. We need not, and do not, determine whether such a bifurcation is authorized under the statutes because we are persuaded that the issue in this case is controlled by MCR 3.211(B)(3), which expressly provides that a judgment of divorce must include a determination of the property rights of the parties. To the extent that the statutes permit a judgment of divorce to contain a property settlement and the court rule requires a judgment of divorce to contain a property settlement, we conclude that the court rule is controlling because the issue is a procedural one. MCR 1.104 provides that rules of practice in statutes are effective until superseded by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. Our Court discussed this and affirmed the clear import of this rule in In re Norris Estate, 151 Mich App 502, 510-511; 391 NW2d 391 (1986).¹ We deem the mandatory contents of a judgment of divorce to be a rule of practice because it dictates procedure, not substance. Thus, the court rule, MCR 3.211(B)(3), takes precedence over the statutes to which defendant makes reference (assuming there is a conflict). Compliance with MCR 3.211(B)(3) ensures that divorce cases are not tried piecemeal subjecting the parties to a multiplicity of orders that could be appealed. Ritzer v Ritzer, 243 Mich 406, 410; 220 NW 812 (1928). Cf. Dobrzenski v Dobrzenski, 208 Mich App 514, 515; 528 NW2d 827 (1995). Further, we note that plaintiff's purported stipula-[Page 602] tion to the judgment is of no consequence given our resolution of this matter. A stipulation by the parties regarding a matter of law is not binding on a court. In re Finlay Estate, 430 Mich 590, 595; 424 NW2d 272 (1988). Accordingly, because the judgment of divorce did not comply with MCR 3.211(B)(3), we reverse the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment of divorce and vacate the judgment of divorce.

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in allowing for the sale of the marital home. We disagree.

The court had such authority as a court of equity. Wiand v Wiand, 178 Mich App 137, 144; 443 NW2d 464 (1989). Allowing the sale of the marital residence was a proper exercise of that equitable power because neither party was making mortgage payments, foreclosure was threatened, and the proceeds were to be put in trust. Clearly, plaintiff did not suffer any prejudice because he had a right of first refusal to purchase the property and, if he did not exercise that right, any interest he had in the home was to be satisfied from the proceeds of the sale. Defendant has asserted that the holding in Ritzer, supra, precluded the court from proceeding in this fashion. We disagree and find the cited language from Ritzer inapplicable. Ritzer, supra, did not prevent the court from ordering the sale of the marital home under circumstances where mortgage payments were not being made and any equity in the home was at risk. It is that situation the court dealt with here. In summary, under the circumstances found here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sale of the marital home before entry of a final property settlement.

[Page 603]

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the stay of proceedings is dissolved. The judgment of divorce is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This Court does not retain jurisdiction.

FOOTNOTES

1See also Administrative Order No. 1994-10, which states that a criminal discovery court rule prevails over a conflicting statute providing for criminal discovery.

Pending Legislation

Summary of the Bill

Senate Bill 506-Sponsors, Michelle McManus and Roger Kahn-Circumstances Under which a putative father may sue to establish paternity of a child born to a married woman. MCL 722.711, et, seq, currently the bill is in committee.

SENATE BILL No. 645

SB 645, Introduced
SENATE BILL No. 645

July 24, 2007, Introduced by Senators CHERRY and OLSHOVE and referred to the
Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1966 PA 138, entitled "The family support act,"

by amending section 1 (MCL 552.451), as amended by 2002 PA 8.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 1. (1) A married parent who has a minor child or children 
 living with him or her and who is living separate and away from his 
 or her spouse who is the noncustodial parent of the child or 
 children, and who is refused financial assistance by the 
 noncustodial parent to provide necessary shelter, food, care, and 
 clothing for the child or children, if the spouse is of sufficient 
 financial ability to provide that assistance, may complain to the 
 circuit court for the county where either parent resides for an 
 order for support for himself or herself and the minor child or 
 children. Subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time 
 enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605b, the parent may also 
 complain to the circuit court for support for a child or children 
 after they reach 18 years of age. The proceedings shall be

commenced by the filing of a complaint verified by the petitioner 
and by issuance of a summons that shall be personally served upon 
 the noncustodial parent of the children and spouse of the 
 petitioner. A complaint shall not be filed nor shall any summons 
 issue if divorce or separate maintenance proceedings are then 
 pending between the petitioner and his or her spouse.
      (2) If the court finds that a nonresident parent is avoiding 
 personal service, the court shall enter an order permitting service 
 of process to be made by any of the following methods:
      (a) Publishing a copy of the order once a week for 3 
 consecutive weeks in a newspaper in the county where the defendant 
 resides and sending a copy of the order to the defendant at his or 
 her last known address by registered mail, return receipt 
 requested, before the date of the last publication.
      (b) Posting a copy of the order in the courthouse and 2 or 
 more public places the court directs for 3 continuous weeks and 
 sending a copy of the order to the defendant at his or her last 
 known address by registered mail, return receipt requested, before 
 the last week of posting.
      (c) Any other method of service reasonably calculated to give 
 the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity 
 to be heard.
      (3) The court order under subsection (2) shall include the 
 following:
      (a) The name of the court.
      (b) The name of the parties.
      (c) A statement describing the nature of the proceedings.
      (d) A statement as to where and when the defendant may answer 
 or take other action permitted by law.
      (e) A statement as to the effect of the defendant's failure to 
 answer.

Cases

Summary of the Case

Karchin vs. Karchin, unpublished June 19th, 2007 No. 268750: Facts: Michigan Divorce filed on 12/07/04, Plaintiff asserted fault and pleaded diminished earning capacity. Plaintiff sought 55 percent of the parties assets, as well as sole and legal physical custody of the parties minor child, who was then 17 years old. But plaintiff settled for joint legal custody. The trial court found that both parties were at fault for the breakdown of the marriage and the filing of the Michigan divorce.Therefore, the trial court ordered the parties to sell the marital home and split the proceeds equally. Plaintiff was awarded possession of the marital home until it was sold, and defendant was ordered to pay the mortgage payments and taxes on the home until June 1, 2006, after which the parties were to split those expenses equally. Defendant was ordered to pay monthly child support of $1,158.06 until Joshua turned 18. Defendant was also ordered to pay plaintiff spousal support of $800 a month until the marital home was sold, $1,800 a month after the sale of the marital home and until the minor child was 18 years old, and $1,500 a month after the minor child turned 18 for a period of seven years. Plaintiff was awarded her premarital accounts, the loss carry forward, half of the parties' joint accounts, and half of the retirement portfolio. Defendant was awarded the vacation home, half of the parties' joint accounts, and half of the retirement portfolio.

Plaintiff appealed as of right, claiming that 55 percent of the marital assets should have been awarded to the Plaintiff in their Michigan Divorce. The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that it is not appropriate to consider fault that occurred prior to the breakdown of the marriage. The trial court had made a finding that the marriage broke down long before the Defendant's extra-marital relationship. The Michigan Court of Appeals also held that Defendant's inherited property was not co-mingled and therefore, not divisible, while Plaintiff's inherited property had been co-mingled and therefore was divisible.

The information provided in this site is purely informational and not intended to, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Anyone having a question concerning the law and his rights or remedies there-under should contact an attorney competent to render legal advice within the jurisdiction in which he resides. Transmission to the viewer of this website and the viewer's receipt of any information through the site is not intended to, nor does it create, an attorney/client relationship with The Law Offices of Christopher Kohler, P.C.. This includes, but is not limited to, the transmission of an e-mail message to or from Attorney Kohler. No attorney/client relationship shall exist unless and until the facts, circumstances and legal issues of a particular matter have been thoroughly discussed with Attorney Kohler and a written Attorney Fee Agreement has been fully executed by and between Attorney Kohler and the person seeking to enter into an attorney/client relationship with Kohler & Associates, P.C.

Your Michigan Divorce Lawyer serving: Lake Orion, Michigan West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Orchard Lake, Waterford, Pontiac, Keego Harbor, Holly, Mt. Clemens, Monroe, Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham, Southfield, Walled Lake, Milford, Trenton, Wayne, Redford, Troy, Rochester Hills, Harrison Township, Oakwood, Ortonville, Clarkston, Oxford, Clawson, Salem, New Hudson, Seven Harbors, Wolverine Lake, Oxbow, Hartland, Leonard, Lakeville, and more!