Trial Lawyer’s Takeaway: a circuit court can modify a child custody or spousal support order while the underlying divorce judgment is under appeal.
Under MCR 7.208(A), once a party has appealed an order or judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals, a lower cannot modify that order or a judgment, with a limited number of exceptions. One of those exceptions, listed in 7.208(A)(4), is when the power to modify the prior order is “otherwise provided by law.” The question in this case was whether MCL 722.27(1), a provision of the Child Custody Act, which gives a circuit court the power to resolve custody disputes, constitutes the power to modify a prior order “as provided by law.”
Read MoreTrial Lawyer’s Takeaway: A plaintiff cannot move to change venue under MCR 2.223.
Michigan Court Rule 2.223(A) permits a court to order a venue change on (1) timely motion of a defendant or (2) the court’s own initiative. The question in this case is whether a court may order a venue change on plaintiff’s motion.
Read MoreTrial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Presumptive father is a necessary party when court is determining parental rights, and the mother could not assert the presumptive father’s limitations defense until he joined the case as a defendant.
In 2009, Sharea Foster gave birth to a baby boy. Under Michigan law, her husband, Christopher Foster, was the child’s presumptive father. See Pecoraro v. Rostagno-Wallat, 291 Mich. App. 303 (2011). But Shae Graham filed a petition under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA), MCL 722.1431 et seq., to prove his paternity of the child. Graham sued Sharea Foster only, however (not both of the Fosters). As a result, Sharea moved for summary disposition, arguing that (1) her husband Christopher was a necessary party; and (2) the RPA’s limitations period had expired in relation to Christopher. The trial court disagreed, and Sharea filed an interlocutory appeal.
Read MoreKrystal Lowrey fell down the stairs of Woody’s Diner, breaking her tibia and fibula. She claimed the step was covered with water and sued Woody’s Diner for negligence. The Diner moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which the trial court granted, holding that Lowrey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the diner had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition of the stairs.
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: In premises liability case, defendant need not prove it lacked notice by showing what an inspection would have revealed. Demonstrating insufficient evidence of an essential element of the claim is enough under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Read More