Skip to main content

March 2016

Mar 2016
31
March 31, 2016

COA – Because Plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle was not being operated at time of accident, insurer for State assigned claims plan must pay for PIP benefits as insurer of last priority

In Shinn v. State of Michigan Secretary of State Assigned Claims Facility, No. 324227, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that security on plaintiff’s vehicle was not required at the time of an accident, under MCL 500.3101(1), because the vehicle had just been repaired and was parked at the time of the accident.  In light of this finding, the Court further held that because there was no operator of plaintiff’s vehicle, the insurer of the vehicle that struck plaintiff’s vehicle was not the insurer under MCL 500.3114(4)(b); and therefore, the insurer of the State assigned claims plan was the insurer of last priority.

Mar 2016
31
March 31, 2016

COA – Because Plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle was not being operated at time of accident, insurer for State assigned claims plan must pay for PIP benefits as insurer of last priority

In Shinn v. State of Michigan Secretary of State Assigned Claims Facility, No. 324227, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that security on plaintiff’s vehicle was not required at the time of an accident, under MCL 500.3101(1), because the vehicle had just been repaired and was parked at the time of the accident.  In light of this finding, the Court further held that because there was no operator of plaintiff’s vehicle, the insurer of the vehicle that struck plaintiff’s vehicle was not the insurer under MCL 500.3114(4)(b); and therefore, the insurer of the State assigned claims plan was the insurer of last priority.

Mar 2016
31
March 31, 2016

COA: A carryforward of a credit earned under the SBTA is refundable as a “credit” under the MBTA

In Hudsonville Creamery and Ice Cream Co v Department of Treasury, No. 322968, the Court of Appeals concluded that credits that were earned and carried forward from the Michigan Single Business Tax Act (“SBTA”) can be refunded up to 85% under the Michigan Business Tax Act (“MBTA”).

Mar 2016
29
March 29, 2016

Trial courts have no authority to order Secretary of State to amend driving record after plea is withdrawn pursuant to delayed sentencing agreement

In People v. McCann, No. 325281, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that trial courts’ have no authority to order the Michigan Secretary of State to amend a driving record to remove reference to a guilty plea that is later dismissed pursuant to a delayed sentencing agreement. The Defendant pled guilty to operating under the influence of liquor causing serious injury (“OUIL”), among other charges; the trial court accepted a plea that delayed the OUIL sentence under MCL 771.1. An abstract of the conviction was sent to the Secretary of State, which in turn revoked Defendant’s driving privileges. Subsequently, however, the trial court entered an amended plea that involved Defendant withdrawing his OUIL plea and it dismissed the charge. The trial court then ordered the Secretary of State to amend Defendant’s driving abstract to remove the OUIL conviction and to correct his driving privileges accordingly.

Mar 2016
25
March 25, 2016

MSC grants oral argument to consider whether statute entitles stepchildren to wrongful death settlement proceeds

In In re Estate of Cliffman, No. 151998, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application to consider whether stepchildren may share in a recovery from a wrongful-death settlement, when their parent who was married to the decedent has predeceased the decedent.  The appellants argue that they are entitled to a share in the settlement proceeds because under MCL 600.2922(3)(b) the children of the deceased’s spouse may be able to recover if they suffered damages and survived the deceased.  The probate court relied on In re Combs Estate and determined that the appellants could not receive proceeds from the settlement because their mother predeceased the decedent, which terminated the marriage.  Given that the marriage was terminated at the parent’s death, the stepchildren are not “children of the deceased spouse” under MCL 600.2922(3)(b).  The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 16)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset