Property Division - Michigan Law Services, PLLC - Sterling Heights, MI
Sylvester v. Sylvester - Decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) PDF Print E-mail

The court held that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff-ex-wife's motion for entry of a modified QDRO in this divorce action because it did not give effect to the parties' divorce judgment. 

Read more...
 
Lovato v. Lovato - Decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) PDF Print E-mail

The court held, among other things, that the trial court's valuation of $412,000 for the property was within the range of values established by the proofs, and thus, was not clearly erroneous. Also, although the trial court properly considered debt associated with the property when calculating the net value of the marital property, it did not err in omitting other debt from the division of the marital estate. Further, the disposition of the B property to the plaintiff-husband was fair and equitable, and the trial court properly awarded the defendant-wife a property equalization amount of $192,633.19.

Read more...
 
Estate of William F. Kirk v. Kirk - Decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) PDF Print E-mail

 

Holding that the plaintiff-PR did not fulfill her burden of proof, and that the trial court's ruling amending the 1995 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) affected the defendant's substantial rights, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for reinstatement of the original QDRO. 

Read more...
 
Caurdy v. Caurdy - Decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) PDF Print E-mail

The trial court in this divorce action erred by failing to make specific findings of fact on the relevant Sparks factors when it divided the parties' marital property.

Read more...
 
Riekse v. Riekse - Decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) PDF Print E-mail

The court held that the trial court's finding that both parties contributed to the marital estate and its determination that the marital home was worth $213,500 were not clearly erroneous. It also was not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred in deciding to invade the plaintiff-husband's separate assets on the basis of the defendant-wife's demonstration of need. Further, the trial court's factual findings as to the award of spousal support were not clearly erroneous, and the court held that the award of $3,250 a month for 10 years was not inequitable.

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 11

Contact Us Today

Anti Spam Question: What is 100 + 15?
Email:
Subject:
Message:
Follow us on Twitter
Facebook Image

Michigan Law Services, PLLC BBB Business Review