The plaintiff’s appeal is limited to that portion of the trial court’s order denying her request for attorney fees as a sanction, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff issued subpoenas to the defendant’s employer seeking email communications that the defendant sent to his attorney via his employer-provided email address.

The trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she had established the required proper cause or change in circumstances.

The trial court correctly modified the parties’ custody order to give the mother sole legal and physical custody of the children.

In this divorce action, the trial court properly held that a postnuptial agreement the parties had entered into did not violate public policy and was enforceable, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this divorce action should not have denied the defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing and allowing the defendant to support her request for fees.

The trial court also held the defendant’s former legal counsel, the law firm of Neda, Camaj & Fakhouri, PC, jointly and severally liable for the fees. The law firm appealed the ruling.

An ex-wife must repay Ford Motor Company more than $243,000 that she mistakenly received as part of her ex-husband’s retirement benefits in her divorce.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court committed clear legal error when examining MCL 722.23 and applying best-interest factors (f), (g), (i) and (k)

The trial court should not have denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the parties’ divorce judgment based on alleged fraud.

A consent JOD under which the parties agreed that the defendant would pay the plaintiff one-half of his military retirement benefits is preempted by federal law and is unenforceable.

A probate judge erroneously applied MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i) and, as a result, improperly determined that a widow did not qualify as her husband’s surviving spouse for inheritance purposes.

The trial court erroneously discounted the role of the parent who worked outside the home and, improperly ruled that the child only had an ECE with the stay-at-home parent.

A father’s use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method constituted as domestic violence and, as a result, the trial court properly modified custody.

The plaintiff-mother was properly awarded sole custody of the parties’ child and the defendant-father was correctly ordered to continue supervised parenting time.

A trial court properly issued an order requiring that the parties’ child be vaccinated by a pediatrician and for the parties to select a new, mutually agreeable pediatrician for the child.