Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

October 2015

Oct 2015
26
October 26, 2015

COA: Restitution only available for victims named in the charged conduct

The Court of Appeals has reiterated the Michigan Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in People v. McKinley, that a trial court may only award restitution to victims of the conduct giving rise to the criminal conviction.  In People v. Raisbeck, No. 321722, the trial court ordered the defendant, who was convicted of racketeering, to pay restitution for 31 victims, despite the fact that only 18 victims were listed in the criminal information.  The defendant appealed the restitution order, arguing that the trial court could not include acts against individuals not listed in the information.  The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the restitution order based on People v. McKinley.

Oct 2015
26
October 26, 2015

COA: Parole Board must interview prisoner before it decides whether to deny parole application

The Court of Appeals has ruled that the Parole Board has a statutory obligation to interview a prisoner before making a decision regarding the prisoner’s parole application.  Additionally, a parole eligibility report must be prepared by the appropriate institutional staff before the expiration of the prisoner’s minimum sentence.   In Hayes v. Parole Board, No. 321547, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to consider him for parole.  The Court found that the Board had failed to fulfill the necessary statutory obligations in considering defendant’s parole application.

Oct 2015
23
October 23, 2015

COA holds that a recent amendment to MCPA does not apply to conduct that occurred before March 28, 2001

In Dell v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, No. 322654, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying Citizens motion for summary disposition because Dell’s complaint properly alleged violations under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), the conduct at issue occurred prior to March 28, 2001, and the complaint was filed on or before June 5, 2014.  Additionally, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s entry of JNOV because it relied on Citizens’ statute of limitations defense which was waived because Citizens failed to mention it as an affirmative defense.

Oct 2015
23
October 23, 2015

COA concludes that the plain terms of trust authorized “Lady Bird” Quitclaim Deed and there is no presumption of undue influence without a fiduciary or confidential relationship

In the consolidated appeal of Bill and Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia, Nos. 322401; 322402, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that 1) the trust’s plain terms enabled the settlor to execute a quitclaim deed in his favor; and 2) there was no evidence presented in order to establish a fiduciary relationship to invoke a presumption of undue influence.  The issues on appeal were 1) whether the settlor’s conveyance of property to himself was contrary to the intent of the trust; and 2) whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the settlor and the personal representative of his estate so as to invoke a presumption of undue influence.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant on both issues

Oct 2015
23
October 23, 2015

COA: Disinheriting language in a will does not deprive children of their statutory right to exempt property, says the COA

In In re Estate of Jajuga, No. 322522, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a provision in a will that expressly disinherited the decedent’s children did not prevent the decedent’s surviving child from otherwise exercising her statutory right to exempt property under MCL 700.2404.

Oct 2015
20
October 20, 2015

MSC takes a pass on legal-malpractice accrual

After full merits briefing and oral argument, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave as improvidently granted in Bernstein v. Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, & Serlin PC, No. 149032.  The case involved the issues of (1) whether a claim for legal malpractice accrued at the time general legal services were discontinued and (2) whether those services were “the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose” under MCL 600.5838.

Displaying results 7-12 (of 32)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6  >  >| 

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