Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: There is no statute of limitations for filing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order

It seems there is no longer a statute of limitations on entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In Joughin v. Joughin, No. 329993, the defendant ex-husband attempted to appeal an order entering a QDRO that would entitle his ex-wife to $23,823 from his Iron Workers Local #55 Profit Sharing Annuity Plan and Trust, arguing that 10-year statute of limitations bars the entry of that order given the fact that the divorce judgment was finalized almost 12 years prior. The majority of the Court of Appeals panel stated that the entering of a QDRO as part of a divorce judgment is considered a “ministerial” task, not a non-contractual money obligation, which carries the 10 year statute of limitations. This allowed the plaintiff to file the order and receive payment.

Jun 2017
21
June 21, 2017

COA: Fit parents have the right to adjust grandparenting time

“MCL 722.27b provides grandparents in certain situations the means to seek an order for grandparenting time.” However, in Geering v. King, No. 335794, the Court of Appeals found that this cannot come at the expense of limiting the right of fit parents, who may, for reasons the courts may disagree with, choose to limit the amount of time that their children spend with their grandparents.

May 2017
11
May 11, 2017

Department of Health and Human Services failed to accommodate disabilities by using a one-size-fits-all family reunification plan, says MSC

The Department of Health and Human Services may not use a standard family plan when attempting to reunify families in probate matters, said the Michigan Supreme Court in In re Hicks, No. 15378.  Specifically, the Court held that the Department has not complied with its duty to make reasonable efforts at family reunification when it fails to modify its services to reasonably accommodate a parent with a disability. 
 

Apr 2017
12
April 12, 2017

A statute of limitations defense belongs only to the party raising it and cannot be resolved before that party is added to an action

A court may not preemptively decide whether a statute of limitations defense is available to a necessary party before he or she has been made a party to the litigation, held the Michigan Supreme Court in Graham v. Foster, No. 152058.  Additionally, the Court also held that a person timely made a party to an action may not claim on his or her own behalf that the action is time-barred on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to add a necessary party before the limitations period expired.
 

Displaying results 1-6 (of 215)
 |<  < 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