Awarding joint custody in Saginaw.
In Saginaw custody disputes, parents must be advised of the availability of joint custody.
If the Sagninawe parents agree on joint custody, the court must order it unless it finds on the record by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the best interests of the child. see http://www.attorneybankert.com/
At the request of either Saginaw party, the court must consider joint custody and must state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the request. see http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/
The court determines whether Saginaw joint custody would be in the best interests of the child by considering the statutory best interests factors and whether the parents will be able to cooperate and generally agree on important decisions concerning the child’s welfare.
We also kn ow that people in these diputes and money problems alsom We know its http://www.nojokebeingbroke.com/
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Friday, May 28, 2010
PROPERTY DIVISION SAGINAW DIVORCE
SAGINAW DIVORCE PROPERTY DIVISION REVIEWED BY ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT A DIVORCE LAWYER.
For immediate help with your family law questions call 810-235-1970.
THE SAGINAW DIVORCE PROPERTY DIVISION CASE
CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.
Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010
Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.
Trial Court Judge Robert L. KaczarekLower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM
(This opinion has been modified for media presentation)
To see original document, http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20100504_c288923_61_288923opn.pdf
SAAD, J.
Plaintiff Cheri Woodington appeals the trial court’s judgment of divorce. She argues that the trial court made inadequate findings of fact in regard to the value of marital property, the date of valuation, and the status of certain assets as marital or separate property. She also raises issues concerning discovery, spousal support, and attorney fees. Defendant Kamran Shokoohi cross-appeals and contends that the trial court erred in failing to divide the property in accordance with the parties’ prenuptial agreement. We affirm some aspects of the trial court’s judgment; however, because the inadequacy of the trial court’s findings on several of these matters precludes meaningful appellate review, we remand for further proceedings.
II. SAWMILL CREEK PROPERTY
Plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred in finding that the real property defendant purchased on Sawmill Creek was not a marital asset. We disagree.
We review for clear error a trial court’s findings of fact regarding whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property. See McNamara v Horner, 249 Mich App 177, 182-183; 642 NW2d 385 (2002). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Ackerman v Ackerman, 197 Mich App 300, 302; 495 NW2d 173 (1992). We accord special deference to a trial court's factual findings that were based on witness credibility. Draggoo, 223 Mich App at 429.
A “trial court’s first consideration when dividing property in divorce proceedings is the determination of marital and separate assets.” Reeves v Reeves, 226 Mich App 490, 493-494; 575 NW2d 1 (1997). Marital assets are those that came “to either party by reason of the marriage. . . .” MCL 552.19. Generally, marital assets are subject to being divided between the parties, but separate assets may not be invaded. McNamara, 249 Mich App at 183.
Plaintiff presented evidence that the Sawmill Creek property was a marital asset acquired by defendant before she filed for divorce, but defendant presented evidence that he bought the property for and on behalf of his sister, with his sister’s money.
This issue presented a question of the credibility of the witnesses. Although the trial court might have found that defendant’s explanation of his involvement in the Sawmill property purchase was not credible, and that he was concealing the property’s true status as a marital asset, it gave credence to his explanation. This finding was not clearly erroneous because it was based on the trial court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses. Draggoo, 223 Mich App at 429.
Posted here by
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
see
[1]
CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.
Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010
Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.
Trial Court Judge Robert L. KaczarekLower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM
[2]
CAP HEADLINES OR (trb)
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
MISC
FOOTNOTES
1 Staple v Staple, 241 Mich App 562, 566; 616 NW2d 219 (2000). We note that the holding in Staple is inapplicable because Staple applies “to judgments entered pursuant to the parties’ own negotiated settlement agreements, not to alimony provisions of a judgment entered after an adjudication on the merits.” Id. at 569.
For immediate help with your family law questions call 810-235-1970.
THE SAGINAW DIVORCE PROPERTY DIVISION CASE
CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.
Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010
Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.
Trial Court Judge Robert L. KaczarekLower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM
(This opinion has been modified for media presentation)
To see original document, http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20100504_c288923_61_288923opn.pdf
SAAD, J.
Plaintiff Cheri Woodington appeals the trial court’s judgment of divorce. She argues that the trial court made inadequate findings of fact in regard to the value of marital property, the date of valuation, and the status of certain assets as marital or separate property. She also raises issues concerning discovery, spousal support, and attorney fees. Defendant Kamran Shokoohi cross-appeals and contends that the trial court erred in failing to divide the property in accordance with the parties’ prenuptial agreement. We affirm some aspects of the trial court’s judgment; however, because the inadequacy of the trial court’s findings on several of these matters precludes meaningful appellate review, we remand for further proceedings.
II. SAWMILL CREEK PROPERTY
Plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred in finding that the real property defendant purchased on Sawmill Creek was not a marital asset. We disagree.
We review for clear error a trial court’s findings of fact regarding whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property. See McNamara v Horner, 249 Mich App 177, 182-183; 642 NW2d 385 (2002). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Ackerman v Ackerman, 197 Mich App 300, 302; 495 NW2d 173 (1992). We accord special deference to a trial court's factual findings that were based on witness credibility. Draggoo, 223 Mich App at 429.
A “trial court’s first consideration when dividing property in divorce proceedings is the determination of marital and separate assets.” Reeves v Reeves, 226 Mich App 490, 493-494; 575 NW2d 1 (1997). Marital assets are those that came “to either party by reason of the marriage. . . .” MCL 552.19. Generally, marital assets are subject to being divided between the parties, but separate assets may not be invaded. McNamara, 249 Mich App at 183.
Plaintiff presented evidence that the Sawmill Creek property was a marital asset acquired by defendant before she filed for divorce, but defendant presented evidence that he bought the property for and on behalf of his sister, with his sister’s money.
This issue presented a question of the credibility of the witnesses. Although the trial court might have found that defendant’s explanation of his involvement in the Sawmill property purchase was not credible, and that he was concealing the property’s true status as a marital asset, it gave credence to his explanation. This finding was not clearly erroneous because it was based on the trial court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses. Draggoo, 223 Mich App at 429.
Posted here by
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
see
[1]
CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.
Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010
Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.
Trial Court Judge Robert L. KaczarekLower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM
[2]
CAP HEADLINES OR (trb)
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
MISC
FOOTNOTES
1 Staple v Staple, 241 Mich App 562, 566; 616 NW2d 219 (2000). We note that the holding in Staple is inapplicable because Staple applies “to judgments entered pursuant to the parties’ own negotiated settlement agreements, not to alimony provisions of a judgment entered after an adjudication on the merits.” Id. at 569.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
REFEREE HEARINGS
Domestic relations referee hearings; judicial review.
by Terry Ray Bankert a Flint Divorce Lawyer Attorney
KNOW YOUR CUSTODY,SUPPORT AND DIVORCE RIGHTS. Michigan Divorce Lawyer , Custody and support.
The domestic relations referee must schedule a hearing within 14 days of receipt of the motion and must notify the parties’ attorneys or unrepresented parties. The notice must clearly state that the matter will be heard by a referee.
Within 21 days after the hearing, the domestic relations referee must make a statement of findings on the record or must submit a written report to the court, including findings and a summary of the testimony. A recommended order must also be submitted and served on the attorneys or unrepresented parties, and proof of service must be filed with the court.
A party has the right to judicial review of any matter that was the subject of a referee hearing and resulted in a statement of findings and a recommended order. The party must file and serve written objection and notice of a hearing on the parties or their attorneys within 21 days after the domestic relations referee’s recommended order was served.
If no such objections are filed, and the court approves, the domestic relations referee’s recommended order takes effect.
A judicial hearing must be held within 21 days after an objection is filed, unless the court extends the time for good cause.
The court hears the matter de novo, but the parties can stipulate that the judicial hearing be based solely on the record of the referee hearing.
Attorney Terry R. Bankert based in Flint Michigan. State Wide Divorce practice in mediation.
For information about State Wide Family Law issues in your area go to http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/
At my web site there are many Family Law Articles to help you.
by Terry Ray Bankert a Flint Divorce Lawyer Attorney
KNOW YOUR CUSTODY,SUPPORT AND DIVORCE RIGHTS. Michigan Divorce Lawyer , Custody and support.
The domestic relations referee must schedule a hearing within 14 days of receipt of the motion and must notify the parties’ attorneys or unrepresented parties. The notice must clearly state that the matter will be heard by a referee.
Within 21 days after the hearing, the domestic relations referee must make a statement of findings on the record or must submit a written report to the court, including findings and a summary of the testimony. A recommended order must also be submitted and served on the attorneys or unrepresented parties, and proof of service must be filed with the court.
A party has the right to judicial review of any matter that was the subject of a referee hearing and resulted in a statement of findings and a recommended order. The party must file and serve written objection and notice of a hearing on the parties or their attorneys within 21 days after the domestic relations referee’s recommended order was served.
If no such objections are filed, and the court approves, the domestic relations referee’s recommended order takes effect.
A judicial hearing must be held within 21 days after an objection is filed, unless the court extends the time for good cause.
The court hears the matter de novo, but the parties can stipulate that the judicial hearing be based solely on the record of the referee hearing.
Attorney Terry R. Bankert based in Flint Michigan. State Wide Divorce practice in mediation.
For information about State Wide Family Law issues in your area go to http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/
At my web site there are many Family Law Articles to help you.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saginaw County
Saginaw
http://www.saginawcounty.com/
111 S MichiganSaginaw, MI 48602(989) 790-5210
Area: 809 smEst: 1835Pop: 210,039Pop/sm: 259.6Seat: Saginaw
http://www.saginawcounty.com/
111 S MichiganSaginaw, MI 48602(989) 790-5210
Area: 809 smEst: 1835Pop: 210,039Pop/sm: 259.6Seat: Saginaw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
