UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW

How to Get a Trial Court Decision that you Don't Like!

The Michigan court of appeals ruled in Birry v Birry, Docket No. 256627 (Aug 24, 2006) on a number of issues that are of interest to family practitioners:

1). Discharge in bankruptcy:  The trial court ruled that all amounts owed to Plaintiff Wife were non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The trial court also held that all sums owed to the wife were in the nature of support.

The analysis of the COA was two-fold. It vacated the T/C's ruling that all amounts were non-dischargeable, stating that it was only within the authority of a bankruptcy court to make that determination in the event that a bankruptcy action was filed. On the other hand, the COA held that it was within the T/C's authority to decide that all sums owed with in the nature of support, citing Krist v Krist, 246 Mich App 59 (2001).

2). Imputation of income for child support purposes: The COA upheld the T/C's refusal to impute income to the wife and also upheld imputation of income to the husband, citing reliance upon not only his W-2s, but also his own representations on loan origination documents.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Renders PPO Invalid

A Florida court has ruled that a personal protection order issued in that state was invalid for lack of personal jurisdiction where the only contacts Husband had with Wife in that Florida were voice and text messages left on her cellular telephone while she was present there. Husband's phone records clearly showed that he was in Maryland and there was no evidence that he knew that Wife was present in Florida at the time he left the messages on her cellular phone. The court noted that Wife was not without protection, because she could obtain a protective order against Husband in his state of residence. If she had such an order, Florida would be required to give the order full faith and credit under the Violence Against Women Act (18 U.S.C. § 2265) and Florida statutes. Moreover Florida would be required to enforce the order whether or not it was registered in Florida.

Read the case at this link: Becker v. Johnson, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13194 (August 8, 2006) (last visited August 10, 2006 jmh)

To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here

Pets Included in PPOs?

An article posted today in the ABA Family Law Journal by Arin Greenwood begins:

"Leave me and I’ll kill the dog. It’s a classic intimidation tool in domestic violence cases, says Portland, Maine, lawyer Anne H. Jordan. And it can prevent a battered spouse from leaving home to seek help."

Greenwood writes about a new state law in Maine that permits pets to be included in personal protection orders and to be taken into custody and placed in safety in a foster home temporarily, if necessary. To read the article, see Saving Fido.

To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.

Nelly, Bar the Door!

Today (August 2, 2006), a lawyer asked on the Family Law Listserv a question that may be of substantial interest to some Michigan parents and lawyers in light of the Michigan supreme court's decision three days ago in Barnes v Jeudevine. He asked:

"I filed a motion which the court denied in a paternity action several months ago.  Last week the Supremes issued an opinion in a case that gives me a basis for filing a motion for reconsideration but it would obviously be beyond the deadline set by the court rules.  Does anyone know of a case that says such a motion is appropriate even if after the deadline when an appellate court issues a new decision?  Thanks in advance."