The tolling amendment to the one-year-back rule in the no-fault act at MCL 500.3145 does not apply to claims for services which accrued before its effective date, even if a lawsuit was filed after its effective date.

The trial court “committed clear legal error” in this custody case by not applying the “parental presumption” or making the required best-interest determination before ordering that the plaintiff-mother’s child remain with the defendant, a putative father who had no legal rights to the child.

Referees tasked with officiating recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting recklessly, while recreational sports facilities tasked with organizing recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting negligently in organizing such activities.

Foreclosing governmental entities are statutorily and constitutionally required to provide timely notice regarding the rights of individuals with an interest in a property upon the issuance of a foreclosure judgment, to ensure that former property owners can successfully pursue any remaining proceeds as set forth in the GPTA, post-Rafaeli.

The trial court properly entered a default judgment of divorce in this case because the defendant failed to show “good cause” for setting aside the default, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The probate court failed to abide by the requirements in the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) when it removed a husband as the guardian of his incapacitated wife, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A utility company’s “franchise fee” was an “unauthorized tax” that violated the Michigan Constitution and, as a result, the utility company could not collect the fee from its customers and then remit the collected fees to the City of East Lansing, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s order dismissing the paternity action because the Trial Court was the appropriate venue for the paternity action under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq, and the Friend of the Court’s motion to dismiss was improper as it was outside the scope of the Friend of the Court’s statutory authority pursuant to MCL 552.501(2).

The trial court erroneously referred this custody case to the Friend of the Court without first determining whether there was proper cause or a change in circumstances that necessitated a review of custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals vacated the Trial Court’s decision because the Brazilian birth certificate identifying Defendant as Father was not sufficient to establish his parentage and therefore the entry of the Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO) was erroneous. 

The Michigan Supreme Court has remanded a probate dispute to the Court of Appeals, ordering the three-judge appellate panel to explain why it awarded a party vexatious appeal sanctions under the Michigan Court Rules.

Trial Court properly denied guardian’s request to terminate mother’s parental rights because, even though mother had not had substantial and regular contact with the child for more than 2 years and although mother had not supported the child for more than 2 years, the guardian’s actions prevented phone calls and visits.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated part of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in In re JMG/JGG/JMG, Minors, remanding the termination of parental rights case and ordering the trial court to “make an individualized best-interests determination as to each child.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that requiring a social worker who abuses a child to report that abuse under the Child Protection Law violates the social worker’s right against self-incrimination.

The Court of Appeals ruled that a chiropractor may offer expert testimony on causation in personal injury cases, provided it falls within the scope of chiropractic practice as defined by the Public Health Code, while affirming the exclusion of causation testimony from a physical therapist due to limitations in their scope of practice.

Previously, the Court of Appeals found plain error after the Trial Court held that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her right to appeal the Trial Court’s removal of the children from her care.