Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Feb 2017
02
February 02, 2017

COA: Prenups cannot deprive court’s ability to divide property in a divorce

Parties cannot waive, in an antenuptial agreement, the statutory authority of a court to invade a party’s separate estate when ordering a property division in a divorce, said the Michigan Court of Appeals on remand in Allard v. Allard, No. 308194. Provisions of Michigan’s divorce statute, according to the court, clearly demonstrate that the Legislature intends circuit courts to have discretion to allocate separate assets if doing so is necessary to achieve equity. Any agreement that attempts to bind that equitable authority of the court is necessarily void as against both statute and public policy.

Jan 2017
30
January 30, 2017

COA rules trial court must make initial child custody finding before referring to friend of the court for investigation

In Bowling v. McCarrick, No. 331583, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred when it referred a child-custody matter to the Friend of the Court for conciliation before it had made a determination regarding whether the party requesting a change in custody had met his burden of proving either proper cause or change of circumstances.  The trial court improperly relied upon the Friend of the Court’s report in determining whether there was proper cause.  Because Michigan statute requires the court to make this determination before ordering the Friend of the Court to investigate, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court order and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 
 

Jan 2017
25
January 25, 2017

MSC grants MOAA on whether an employee’s communication with her attorney constitutes a report to a public body within the meaning of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act

In Tammy McNeil-Marks v. Mid-Michigan Medical Center-Gratiot, No. 154159, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to address whether an employee’s communication with her attorney constitutes a report to a public body within the meaning of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”).  The plaintiff in the action had an encounter with one of her employer’s patients, against whom she had a personal protection order (“PPO”).  After informing her attorney of the encounter, her employer discharged her for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”).  The plaintiff subsequently filed an action against her employer, alleging in part that her discharge violated the WPA.  The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the employer; however, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff’s discussion with her attorney amounted to a report to a public body within the meaning of the WPA. 

Displaying results 13-18 (of 500)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10  >  >| 

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