M I C H IG A N FAMILY LAW JOURNAL A Publication of the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section • Rebecca E. Shiemke, Chair
Editor: Anthea E. Papista Assistant Editors: Sahera G. Housey • Ryan M. O’ Neil • Lisa M. Damphousse Editorial Board: Daniel B. Bates • Amy M. Spilman • Colleen M. Markou • Shelley R. Spivack • James W. Chryssikos
Volume 45 Number 6 June/July 2015
Chair Message: Mediator Standards of Conduct and the Importance of Screening...... 1 By Rebecca E. Shiemke Notice Proposed Amendments of the Bylaws of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan...... 4 Family Law Council Elections October 8, 2015...5 The Case of the Issue...... 8 By Henry S. Gornbein The 12 Steps of Mediation...... 12 By Shon Cook Professor Lex...... 13 By Harvey I. Hauer and Mark A. Snover Residence Roulette in the Jurisdiction Jungle: Where To Divide The Pension?...... 15 By Mark Sullivan Tailored Installment Payments to Balance the Scales without Breaking the Bank...... 19 By Joseph W. Cunningham Recent Appellate Decisions...... 22 Summarized by the State Bar Family Law Section Amicus Committee Members Legislative Update...... 27 By William Kandler Advertise in the Photograph On the Cover
M I C H IG A N The photo on the front cover is Michigan’s State Capitol as FAMILY LAW photographed in May 2015 from the OURNAL 14th floor of the Romney Building. J The photographer, Ken Randall, is the Midland County Friend of the Court. Ten times per year, the Michigan Family Law Journal Ken is both a lawyer and an artist. As a reaches: lawyer, Ken has worked in the Midland • Over 3,000 State Bar of Michigan members directly; • Various courts and law libraries County Friend of the Court office for • Specialized financial professionals over twenty years, and before that for • State and local public officials six years as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Shiawassee County. Ken has served as president of the Referees’ Your ad for services or products – or your political Association of Michigan, president of the Michigan Family ad – targets people you want most and need to Support Council, president of the Shiawassee County Bar reach. Association, and president of the Central Michigan Family Cost of ad per issue: $350 –full page Support Council. He has actively served on the last two $200-half page quadrennial Child Support Formula Review Committees, as a $175-quarter page faculty member for the Michigan Judicial Institute and as a $100-eighth page presenter for several organizations including the Friend of the Prepayment for 10 issues receives a 5% discount Court Association and the Michigan Family Support Council. For details contact: As an artist, Ken is an award winning photographer. His photography has been published in many forums including Kristen L. Robinson books, magazines, newspapers, and web sites. His fine art c/o Mellin Robinson, PC 1755 W. Big Beaver Road photographs, usually pertaining to landscapes and nature, Troy, MI 48084 have been exhibited in Flint at the Buckham Gallery, in Telephone: (248) 614-9005 Midland at the Center for the Arts, and in Minnesota’s Great Fax: (248) 614-9095 Lakes Aquarium. Ken is a member of the Family Law Section.
List of Council Meetings*
September 12, 2015 Novi - Doubletree Inn
*All regular, monthly Council meetings start at 9:30 a.m. on Saturdays and are preceded by a breakfast buffet starting at 9:00 a.m. The Annual Meeting customarily starts at 9:00 a.m. with breakfast buffet at 8:30 a.m. Family Law Section members who are not Council members are welcome at all Council meetings. However, if you know you are going to attend a meeting, kindly send an e-mail in advance so we are sure to have plenty of space and food. If a presenter or member wishes access to audio-video equipment, please let us know 7 days in advance.
—Rebecca E. Shiemke; [email protected]
2014-2015 Family Law Section Officers and Council Members Chair: Expires 2015 Expires 2016 Expires 2017 Rebecca E. Shiemke Daniel B. Bates Elizabeth K. Bransdorfer Carol F. Breitmeyer Chair-Elect: Christopher J. Harrington J. Matthew Catchick, Jr. Hon. Richard B. Halloran Carol F. Breitmeyer Colleen M. Markou Sahera G. Housey Mathew Kobliska Treasurer: Peter Michael Kulas Vanessa Marie Moss-Wilson Hon. Richard B. Halloran Kristen L. Robinson Corresponding Secretary: Robert Charles Treat, Jr. Anthea E. Papista Steven D. Reinheimer Kent L. Weichmann Randall L. Velzen Gail M. Towne Rebecca E. Shiemke Recording Secretary: Tina M. Yost Kent L. Weichmann Amy M. Spilman Robert Charles Treat, Jr. List of Advertisers
Family Law Section Mid-Summer Conference...... 3 Great Lakes Honor Roll...... 11 QDRO-Services, Attorney Mark Cherniak...... 13 Family Law Section Lifetime Achievement Award Winners...... 14 Barry Grant, CPA, CFF...... 16 ICLE—Fundamentals of Divorce Practice & Procedure Seminar...... 18 Judeh & Associates...... 20 QDROExpress LLC, Attorney Robert Treat...... 21 Kristen L. Robinson—Family Law Mediation...... 25 Family Law Political Action Committee...... 26 Michigan Family Law Appeals, Scott Bassett...... 28
The Michigan Family Law Journal Endeavors to Establish Letters to the Editor and Maintain Excellence in Our Service to the Family The Michigan Family Law Journal welcomes letters Law Bench and Bar and Those Persons They Serve. to the editor. Typed letters are preferred; all may be Editor: edited. Each letter must include name, home address Anthea E. Papista and daytime phone number. Please submit your Assistant Editors: letters, in Word format, to the Chair of the Family Sahera G. Housey • Ryan M. O' Neil • Lisa M. Damphousse Law Section, Rebecca E. Shiemke, c/o State Bar of Editorial Board: Michigan, Michael Franck Building, 306 Townsend Daniel B. Bates • Amy M. Spilman Street, Lansing, MI 48933, [email protected] Colleen M. Markou • Shelley R. Spivack • James W. Chryssikos
FAMILY LAW SECTION “LISTSERV” (E-mail Discussion Group)
The Family Law Section sponsors a “listserv,” which is “geek-speak” for an e-mail discussion group. To be eligible to join, you must be a member of the Family Law Section or be a Michigan judge. If you are eligible and wish to participate (it is a wonderful opportunity to share ideas and solve problems, not to mention communicating with many fine colleagues), you may initiate your subscription to the Familylaw listserv by going to http://groups.michbar.org/ and click on FamilyLaw. Once there, fill out the form under “Subscribing to FamilyLaw” and follow the instructions. If you have questions, contact Elizabeth A. Sadowski at sadowski@ mindspring.com, or call her at (248) 652-4000. To All Prospective Family Law Journal Authors:
On behalf of the Family Law Council, I am encouraging our membership and readers to consider submitting an article to the Family Law Journal.
Article Contact Person: The primary contact person at the State Bar for Journal articles is Sue Oudsema (517) 367-6423 and [email protected]. Article submissions should be e-mailed to Sue in Word format. Please carbon copy me ([email protected]) and Sahera Housey ([email protected]) and write “Article for the Family Law Journal” in the subject line when you submit your article.
Article Deadlines: Please submit your articles to Sue Oudsema at her email address above no later than the last day of the month preceding the publication month. There are ten (10) published Family Law Journal issues each year. June/July and August/September are combined issues.
Formatting and Links: Consistent with the Bar Journal’s practice, our formatting resource guide is The Chicago Manual of Style (see www.chicagomanualofstyle.org). Please use endnotes for citations. Feel free to include links in your endnotes, which will permit the reader to click — and then be directed to the original source or reference.
Peer Reviewed: Authors are expected to have engaged another attorney to carefully review, critique, and edit articles before sending to the Family Law Journal for consideration.
Bio & a Picture Please: All authors are requested to submit a short biography not to exceed 100 words (similar to the Bar Journal) and photo to Sue in conjunction with your article.
Please Notify: If you are a first time author and wish to submit an article for possible publication, please advise Sahera Housey or Anthea Papista. Please include a detailed description of your topic.
Editorial Board Discretion: The Editorial Board reserves the right to accept, reject, and edit all submitted articles. We shall endeavor to communicate any necessary substantive changes to the author in advance of publication.
Very Truly Yours, Anthea E. Papista Journal Committee Chair CHAIR MESSAGE Mediator Standards of Conduct and the Importance of Screening
By Rebecca E. Shiemke - Family Law Section Chair 2014-2015
Mediation has become an increasingly common method should be considered, or mediation should end unless the to resolve domestic relations disputes. A central principle of party at risk consents to continuing, the mediator is trained to mediation is that the parties must have the ability to make address domestic abuse, the mediator has suggested the pres- free and informed choices to arrive at a voluntary, un-coerced ence of an attorney, advocate or other support person and the outcome. This principle is probably applicable in most cases mediator has assessed that the party can safely convey and ad- referred to mediation. However, in cases where domestic abuse vocate for his or her needs without putting the party at risk. is present, deciding whether – and how – to mediate can be challenging. Violence, coercion and intimidation create pro- Mediator Competence found power imbalances and impact the outcome of any me- diation. Thus, it is necessary at the outset of any mediation This standard requires that “a mediator should be quali- process to screen for the presence of domestic abuse or other fied by training, education, or experience to undertake a me- impediments to a party’s ability to freely negotiate. It is also diation… If a mediator cannot conduct the mediation com- important to use qualified and trained mediators. petently, the mediator shall advise the parties … and take appropriate steps…” Also, “a mediator should attend educa- To insure the quality and safety of mediation, the do- tional and training programs, and engage in self-assessment mestic relations mediation court rule1 requires that media- and peer consultation to maintain and enhance the media- tors must complete a training program approved by the State tor’s knowledge and skills related to mediation.” To meet Court Administrative Office (SCAO), which includes a 40- this standard then, all mediators – including those practicing hour basic mediation training and an additional eight-hour outside of the court rule – should complete the SCAO me- domestic violence component. Additionally, the SCAO has diation training, especially the additional domestic violence adopted Mediator Standards of Conduct as well as a domestic component. The training will equip mediators with the skills violence screening protocol.2 to screen all cases for the presence of abuse, violence or con- In order to understand the role of the mediator, the Me- trolling behavior and to differentiate between those cases that diator Standards of Conduct ought to be reviewed by media- may mediate with protective measures in place from those that tors as well as attorneys representing parties referred to media- are inappropriate for mediation. tion. The document outlines ten standards, three of which are particularly applicable in cases where domestic abuse is or may be present: mediator competence, confidentiality, and safety. Confidentiality Mediators must comply with MCR 2.412 and “maintain the confidentiality of information acquired by the mediator in Safety of Mediation the mediation process.” Mediators should inform the parties This standard requires that “reasonable efforts shall be of the mediator’s obligation regarding confidentiality early on made throughout the mediation process to screen for the pres- in the mediation process. Where domestic abuse is present, ence of an impediment that would make mediation physically the abused party must understand the limits of confidentiality or emotionally unsafe for any participant, or that would im- before deciding whether to disclose sensitive information or pede the achievement of a voluntary and safe resolution of details about the abuse that may put that party at risk. issues.” One such impediment is domestic abuse. Under this standard, “ ‘reasonable efforts’ should include meeting sepa- Encouraging Application of the Standards rately with the parties prior to a joint session and administer- ing the ‘Mediator Screening Protocol’ for domestic violence, The mediator standards of conduct rely on mediators to published by the [SCAO].” If screening identifies domes- voluntarily adhere to the principles outlined. The only conse- tic abuse or another impediment to safety, accommodations quence of failure to comply with the obligations imposed by
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 1 a standard is removal of a mediator from a court roster under to explore the advantages, disadvantages and barriers to using MCL 3.216. Yet, the standards advance the quality of the the domestic violence screening protocol. The committee will process and the outcome of all mediations. Mediators who schedule sessions at the Annual Meeting of the State Bar ADR adhere to the standards insure a process that promotes safety, Section in October and again at the Family Law Institute in procedural fairness and mutual respect among all participants; November. I encourage any mediators who will attend either a process more likely to lead to a voluntary and un-coerced of these events to watch for invitations to the listening ses- agreement. sions. Alternatively, I invite anyone with thoughts about the To assist mediators in identifying those cases where safety screening tool to contact me. I assure you we are interested in concerns may impact a party’s ability to participate freely in ideas to improve and support the process. the process, the SCAO has developed the domestic violence screening protocol, which includes a series of questions de- signed to identify domestic abuse, violence or other coercive Endnotes controlling dynamics. However, use of the protocol extends 1 See MCR 3.216(G). the time required to mediate a case and is frequently over- 2 The standards are available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administra- looked by some mediators. As a result, the Family Law Sec- tion/SCAO/Resources/Documents/standards/odr/Mediator%20 tion’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee is currently Standards%20of%20Conduct%202.1.13.pdf. The protocol is looking at the practice of mediation in cases where domestic available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/ abuse is present, and, specifically, why the screening protocol Documents/standards/odr/Domestic%20Violence%20Screen- is not widely used by mediators. To that end, the committee ing%20Protocol.pdf. is organizing listening sessions with small groups of mediators
Family Law Section Mid-Summer Conference July 16 – 19, 2015 Boyne Mountain Resort
Please join the Family Law Section for our annual Mid-Summer Conference to be held at Boyne Mountain Resort in Boyne Falls
The seminar will feature presentations by top-notch family law practitioners providing state-of-the-law education and tips on family law issues. In addition, the conference provides valuable opportunities to network with your colleagues. The conference fee of $175 includes conference, breakfasts, cocktail reception, and written materials.
Familes are welcome to attend the cocktail reception Friday evening sponsored by Doeren Mayhew and Greystone Financial Group.
Boyne Mountain Resort Information Boyne Mountain Resort is a smoke-free facility, located at 1 Boyne Mountain Road, Boyne Falls, MI 49713. Discounted tickets to the Avalanche Bay waterpark are available to our group, golf reservations can be made through the Resort and spa services through Solace Spa can also be reserved through the Resort. Rooms start at $162/night base rate. (Room rates are only guaranteed through 6/15.) For more information visit http://www.boyne.com/boynemountain.
2 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 FAMILY LAW SECTION MID-SUMMER CONFERENCE JULY 16 – 19, 2015 Boyne Mountain Resort
Thursday, July 16 5 – 9 pm Welcome Room – stop in and get last minute seminar information and participate in a facilitated discussion about the Supreme Court decision in the same-sex marriage cases
Friday, July 17 8:00 am Breakfast for seminar participants
9:00 am Resolving high conflict financial disputes – Rebecca DeCoster, Bruce Knapp and Jason LeRoy. Cost effective approaches to settlement (which may not be admissible at trial), settlement options that the Court may not be able to order, but can suggest and parties can agree to, and experts can help with.
10:00 am Top Trust and Estate Issues in Divorce Actions – Anthea E. Papista. Strategies and solutions for the top trust and estates issues that arise in divorce actions.
11:00 am Property Law Update – James J. Harrington III. What’s new in property law and how it can help your practice and your clients.
6:00 – 8:00 pm Reception in Paradise – Open bar and hors d’oeuvres in a delightful setting for all seminar participants, family and guests with Jimmy Buffet on the sound system. Wear your Caribbean finest.
Saturday, July 17 8:00 am Breakfast for seminar participants
9:00 am New Family Law Statutes – a panel discussion with Matt Kobliska (moderator), Tina Yost (paternity), Randy Velzen (collaborative law and parent coordination)
10:00 am Getting the Help You Need – Keela Gracey. Choosing between a GAL and parenting coordinator and crafting an order that lets them do their best work.
11:00 am Shades of Vodvarka update – Elizabeth K Bransdorfer. Current status and updated chart of published and unpublished case on threshold for modification of custody and/or parenting time.
Register with the State Bar -- http://e.michbar.org
For room reservations, call Boyne Mountain, 800-462-6963, press 6, ask for State Bar, Family Law Section
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 3 Notice Proposed Amendments of the Bylaws of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan
Section 2.2 At a duly scheduled meeting of the Family Law Section Council on March 7, 2015, the Council of the Family Law Section received a petition signed by eleven members of the Family Law Section requesting that Section 2.2 of the Family Law Section Bylaws be amended to read as follows:
Newly admitted members of the State Bar of Michigan, upon written request, in accordance with State Bar of Michigan policies, may become members of the Section, without payment of dues to the Section, for the first year following his or her original admission to practice.
Section 2.2 of the Bylaws currently provides that newly admitted members of the State Bar of Michigan may become members of the Section, without payment of dues, for the first two years following their original admission of practice. The proposed amendment effectively reduces the number of years of free membership in the Section for newly admitted attorneys from two years to one year. Council voted unanimously in support of this proposed amendment and that the amendment be presented to the members of the Family Law Section for a vote at the Section’s annual meeting scheduled for October 7-9 2015 at the Suburban Collection in Novi, Michigan.
Section 2.3 At a duly scheduled meeting of the Family Law Section Council on March 7, 2015, the Council of the Family Law Section received a petition signed by eleven members of the Family Law Section requesting that Section 2.3 of the Family Law Section Bylaws be amended to read as follows:
Any student regularly enrolled in an ABA accredited law school may be admitted to student membership in the Section without payment of dues and upon verification of law school enrollment submitted in writing to the Division Director of the Membership Services Division—State Bar of Michigan. Student members shall not be eligible to vote or hold office, but shall have all other rights and privileges of membership.
Section 2.3 of the Bylaws currently provides that student members of the Section be required to pay annual dues in the amount of $10.00. This amendment eliminates the requirement of student members to pay any dues whatsoever. Council voted unanimously in support of this proposed amendment and that the amendment be presented to the members of the Family Law Section for a vote at the Section’s annual meeting scheduled for October 7-9 2015 at the Suburban Collection in Novi, Michigan.
4 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Family Law Council Elections October 8, 2015
There are twenty-one members of the Family Law Council, who serve three-year terms. Seven Council seats expire and are subject to election each year. Other positions may become available if a member resigns or is not a member of Council during their term. Seven three-year terms will be the subject of election at the Annual Meeting on October 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the Suburban Collection Showplace, Novi, Michigan. If interested, kindly email the Chair-elect, Carol Breitmeyer at [email protected] and council member Sahera Housey at [email protected].
Election to the Family Law Council All Family Law Section members are eligible for election to one of the twenty-one seats on the Family Law Council. At the Section’s Annual Meeting seven members are elected to a three-year term. In addition, there are occasional seats open for a shorter term as a result of a vacancy on Council. Why become a member of the Family Law Section Council? If you care about family law and molding the shape of the practice, Council membership will provide that opportunity. You will stay up to date on the latest legislation, proposed legislation, and court rules. The Council regularly files amicus briefs with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and has lively discussions on the issues before the court. You can bring fresh ideas to the Section and the practice of family law. You will meet colleagues from around the State who are smart and engaged. The privilege of Council membership requires a significant investment of time and energy, and includes at minimum the following commitments: (1) Attendance and active participation at the monthly Council meetings. There are nine meetings usually held on the 1st Saturday of the month (schedule varies during winter months) at various locations throughout Michigan and at the Family Law Section’s Annual meeting, usually held in conjunction with the State Bar Annual Meeting in September of each year; (2) Publication of at least one article for the Family Law Journal during a member’s three-year term; (3) Active participation in one or more committees established by the Council and regular participation in committee meetings in person or by telephone as necessary. There are no regularly scheduled meetings during the summer months although occasionally issues may be raised via the Council listserv. Under current bylaws, Council members are permitted only two absences per year from the monthly meetings; the third absence will result in automatic removal from Council. The Family Law Council looks forward to receipt of applications from Section members who have the time and energy to make these commitments to the Council. Prospective applications will also wish to review the bylaws of the Family Law Section, available at http://connect.michbar.org/familylaw/council.
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 5 APPLICATION FOR FAMILY LAW COUNCIL forward to Richard Halloran at [email protected] and Amy Spilman at [email protected] The privilege of Family Law Council Membership requires a significant investment of time and energy, and includes at least the following commitments: (1) Attendance and active participation at the monthly Council meetings (nine meetings held generally on the 1st Saturday of each month at various locations throughout Michigan, as well as the Annual meeting each September. A Council member is permitted 2 absences, and subject to automatic removal for 3 absences; excused absences are only granted if Council has directed participation in a conflicting State Bar event. (2) Publication of at least one article regarding Family Law for the Family Law Journal or the State Bar Journal during their term. (3) Active participation in at least one Committee; participation may be by telephone each month ro in person. (4) Active support, attendance and/or testimony regarding significant Legislation pending before the Michigan Legislature, or attendance/testimony before the Michigan Supreme Court on Court Rule Amendments or proposals.
Name P-Number
Address
Business & Cell Phone Numbers Facsimile Number
E-Mail Address Date Admitted to Bar
Professional Accreditations and Affiliations -- FEEL FREE TO ATTACH RESUME
6 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Professional Accomplishments, including publications, seminar presentations, media presentations, State Bar Committees, etc.
Service to the State Bar Family Law Section, including committee work, dates of Council meetings attended, other.
Provide a concise summary of your reasons for requesting nomination as a candidate for a Council position, and what you hope to achieve during your tenure. If there is a particular Committee or area of Family Law that you are interested in working on with the Council, please identify.
Respectfully submitted,
______Applicant Date:
Council Application rev. 06-2015
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 7 The Case of the Issue
By Henry S. Gornbein
Tyronna Howard (Deceased) and Antonio Blackburn -vs- Mark Howard For Publication May 19, 2015
The Issue not want to live with him as they felt that, due to his medical The issue is the right of a third party with regard to custody. conditions, they would be taking care of the Defendant rather than the Defendant-father taking care of them. When the Guardian Ad Litem questioned the Defendant, he was unable Statement of Facts to tell her where the children went to school or where they The parties were divorced on November 13, 2006, with lived. When asked how he would care for the children, he the mother having primary custody. She passed away on Au- told her that the children were big and that they could care gust 31, 2013. Before she died, she and the children moved for themselves. in with Antonio Blackburn, who is the Appellee. On Sep- The trial court noted that it was authorized by the Child tember 24, 2013, the former husband filed an emergency ex Custody Act to grant custody of the children to a third-party, parte motion to enforce the judgment of divorce and return even one without standing, so long as it found that this was in the children to him. He alleged that he attempted to bring his the best interests of the children. children home after his former wife died but Mr. Blackburn There was an evidentiary hearing on the best interest fac- refused to return them. tors and Defendant-father refused to put on witnesses, arguing The response was that the former husband suffered from that the parental presumption was in his favor, and there was brain tumors, multiple sclerosis and lived in a one-bedroom no third party with standing who could rebut the presump- apartment in an assisted living facility. For these reasons, tion by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court allowed the former wife had entrusted the children with her brother, Blackburn to testify in the proceedings and he was subject to Blackburn. Blackburn filed petitions for Guardianship and cross-examination by Defendant’s counsel. No other witness- Conservatorship over each of the children and requested the es were presented in the matter and the Defendant did not trial court maintain the status quo and allow the minor chil- testify on his own behalf. dren to remain with him until the probate court makes a deci- The trial court went through the Child Custody Act and sion on the petitions. found that factors (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j) and (l) On October 4, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on favored Blackburn. It found that factors (f) and (k) favored Blackburn’s motion. Defendant’s sister had power of attorney neither party and found zero factors favored the father. On for Defendant and she was the one who requested the ex parte factor (l), the catch-all factor, the trial court detailed that the motion. She stated that the Defendant wants his custodial most influential factor considered by the court to be relevant rights restored and the children returned to his home. When to this matter is fitness. The trial court was left with its obser- the court questioned Defendant’s sister as to why he was not vations, which included that Defendant was in a wheelchair, addressing the court himself, she indicated that he cannot cog- Defendant raised his hand when his name was mentioned in nitively speak due to his multiple sclerosis. She also stated court, and that Defendant did not know his own address. The that he is not deemed unfit but is deemed disabled, which is a court concluded that the Petitioner established by clear and big difference. He wants his children to live with him. Even convincing evidence that awarding him custody was in the though he is living in a one-bedroom assisted living facility best interests of the minor children. and could not answer but instead looked to his sister for help. The matter was adjourned for her to retain an attorney. The Court of Appeals A Guardian Ad Litem was appointed by the court. She The first argument was that the trial court impermissibly explained that the children love the Defendant but they do allowed the third party, Blackburn, to participate in the pro-
8 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 ceedings and rebut the parental presumption owed to natural based on the fact that the best interest hearing was properly parents under MCL 722.25(1) because he did not have stand- conducted and Blackburn, the third party Uncle, was prop- ing. The Court of Appeals disagreed relying onHeltzel v Helt- erly permitted to present evidence in an attempt to rebut the zel, 248 Mich App 1, 29 (2001). It also cited Ruppel v Lesner, presumption that the children’s best interests required physical 421 Mich 559 (1984) noting that nothing in the Child Cus- custody with Defendant. tody Act, nor in any other authority, authorizes a non-parent to create a child custody “dispute” by simply filing a complaint Conclusion in circuit court alleging that giving custody to the third party is in the “best interests of the children.” The difference here is The trial court’s consideration of this and other evidence that the case was initiated by Defendant-father. Thus, it is a bearing on Defendant’s fitness was a properly focused inquiry situation where the Defendant filed this action seeking judicial on the best interests of the children for all of the reasons al- intervention after his ex-wife died, requesting that the court ready stated. The trial court was affirmed. return his children who had been living at Blackburn’s house. While there is a presumption in favor of an established custo- dial environment set forth in MCL 722.27(1)(c), that yields Comments to the parental presumption set forth in MCL 722.25(1), but This is an interesting opinion that is worth reading in its there is nothing that precludes the third party in this case from entirety. Clearly, this is a case where the natural parent could contesting the return of the children to the Defendant. The not take care of the children and the proper placement was parental presumption may be rebutted. with the uncle. Under MCL 722.25(1), if a custody dispute is between a parent and a third person, the court shall presume that the About the Author best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to Henry S. Gornbein is a partner with the law firm of Lippitt the parent or parents unless the contrary is established by clear O’Keefe Gornbein PLLC in Birmingham, Michigan. His practice and convincing evidence. Clearly, a third party can present is exclusively devoted to Family Law. He is a former chairperson evidence in support of his or her claim that a child’s best inter- of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan; a former ests are served by the continued placement of the child with president of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of a third party. Matrimonial Lawyers; former Chair of the Long Range Planning The next argument was that the trial court erred when it Committee for the national American Academy of Matrimonial ignored the parental presumption and conducted a best inter- Lawyers; member of the Oakland County Friend of the Court est hearing. The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that Citizens Advisory Committee; winner of the Professionalism the trial court gave proper weight to the presumption favoring Award from the Oakland County Bar Association in 2004; Defendant as the preferred custodian of the children; however, author of the “Spousal Support” Chapter of Michigan Family that presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing Law; author of “Case of the Issue” for the Michigan Family Law evidence that custody with Defendant was not in the best in- Journal, State Bar of Michigan; blogger for the Huffington Post; terests of the children. creator and host of the award-winning cable television show, th Defendant also argued that the trial court erred when it Practical Law, now entering its 17 year; and Podcaster for failed to apply the parental presumption and forced him to DivorceSourceRadio.com. His new book, Divorce Demystified, carry the burden of persuasion throughout the proceedings Everything You Need to Know Before Filing for Divorce, is against him. The Court of Appeals discussed and disagreed available on Amazon as a softcover or eBook.
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 9 The Family Law Section GREAT LAKES HONOR ROLL
The Family Law Journal serves as Family Law Council's forum to share ideas, announce new legislation, summarize and analyze case law and trends that affect our Section. Without question, the Journal represents a significant benefit of one's membership in the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Our readers receive advance notice of the most current pertinent legal developments which may impact our practice. We learn from The Best to be The Best. The Family Law Council analyzes, evaluates, testifies, and advocates for the best interest of the Family Law Section regarding all pertinent legislation; it likewise employs a skilled lobbyist to assert our positions on significant new laws.
As a way to express your support for the upcoming year, the Journal will be recognizing honorees on its "Great Lakes Honor Roll." To be included, our loyal readers, authors, and sponsors may participate at various levels as follows: Superior: $1,000 - $1,500 Michigan: $750 - $999 Huron: $500 - $749 Erie: $150 - $499
There is no deadline for joining the Honor Roll. Your name, law firm name or business name will be added to the honoree list for a full year from the date you first join. Your listing may include a “clickable” link to your website if you so choose.
To be included in the Honor Role for the Family Law Journal please complete the form below and send your check payable to "State Bar of Michigan" to:
Kristen Robinson, Mellin Robinson, PC, 1755 W. Big Beaver Rd., Troy, MI 48084
(For additional information contact Kristen Robinson at 248.614.9005)
o Yes, I would like to be listed in the Great Lakes Honor Roll for one year in each edition of the Family Law Journal. o My name, law firm or company should be listed as follows: ______(Indicate how you would like your name, law firm or company to appear on the above line)
o My “clickable link” is as follows: ______(URL/website address)
o I have enclosed a check payable to “State Bar of Michigan” in the amount of $______to be recognized at the ______level. (Great Lake of Choice) Great Lakes Honor Roll
The Family Law Section Great Lakes Honor Roll
Superior • Natalie Alane, Alane & Chartier, PLC • Elizabeth K. (Liz) Bransdorfer, Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones PLC, Grand Rapids • Irika Mellin & Kristen Robinson, Mellin Robinson, P.C., Troy
Michigan • Anthea E. Papista, Papista & Papista, PLC
Huron • Hauer & Snover, PC • Liisa R. Speaker, Speaker Law Firm, PLLC
Erie • Catchick Law, PC • Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA, PC • C. Lynn Gates – Gates Law Office, PC • Mathew Kobliska, DeBrincat, Padgett, Kobliska & Zick • Mallory, Lapka, Scott & Selin, PLLC • Steven D. Reinheimer, Reinheimer Law Office, PLC • Jorin G. Rubin • John J. Schrot, Jr., Berry Moorman PC • Velzen, Johnsen & Wikander, PC
Special thanks to the members of the Great Lakes Honor Roll for their support of the Family Law Section and Family Law Journal in 2015 MEDIATION MATTERS The 12 Steps of Mediation
By Shon Cook
Hello, my name is Shon, and I am a recovering courtroom 9. I will make direct amends to those that I have cross-ex- addict. I used to believe that all family law matters should be amined, impeached and have been violated by my intense tried for their sins and litigated to the end of time. For the need to be correct, right and victorious. first 15 years of practicing law, I saw mediation as interference 10. I will continue to take a personal inventory on every case, to seeking justice. It was my perspective that I was hired to determining when it is best to mediate, negotiate and liti- resolve my client’s divorce. I did not need my client’s help and my client would only screw things up if they talked or had a gate as a last result. voice in the resolution. I spent most of my time telling my 11. I will seek through prayer and mediation to improve my clients not to talk to their spouses, not to communicate about conscious contact with the needs of my client, rather than resolution, and I even worked hard to talk them out of com- my own personal victory. promising or negotiating their own divorce. 12. I will try in all aspects of my life to attempt to listen I was a courtroom addict, the kind of attorney that would first and seek solutions and answers before engaging in fight about anything for the sheer ecstasy of the fight. I fought conflict. over semantics and principle and my own pride. I loved the rush of the battle. I did not think about what was best for my While the above steps are meant to offer a bit of humor, it clients, but what was best for me and MY case. is true that I now seek to mediate and reach agreement before I seek to annihilate. I am not always successful. Like a true After 20 years of litigation, I am in recovery. I seek to addict, I still have days that it is easier to fall into old habits litigate less and resolve more. Therefore, I mediate. But, I still and want to fight, as much as or even more than my clients. find myself from time to time falling off the wagon, yearning As attorneys, it is our professional, and I believe moral, obli- for the taste of a good fight and satisfying my litigation addic- tion. In an attempt to remain sober and strong, I developed gation to seek resolution. Whether that comes from kitchen the 12 steps of mediation. When I work this program and table settlements between spouses, mediation, arbitration, or truly look to the best interests of my clients, I have fewer highs full court war scenarios, we have a duty to give our clients op- and lows for my clients and much more real resolution. tions and a full explanation of consequences. When I truly focus on the people that come to me for help and answers, I 1. I am powerless over judges, even with the law, facts and remember that I have no power or control over the lives of my skill on my side. clients, despite my addictive desire to do so. 2. There is a power greater than litigation that can restore attorneys and clients to sanity. 3. I will turn over control of cases to my clients, rather than About the Author control my clients’ cases. Shon Cook has been practicing family law for twenty years 4. I will work for solutions rather than create problems. and is finally starting to get it right. With a combination of hu- mor, negotiation, decent people skills and the ability to still throw 5. I will work hard to admit to others that fighting is not down a good legal objection or two, Shon has deemed herself “The the best way to resolve wrongs of the past for my clients or myself. Good Witch of the Law.” Shon is determined to help people in a positive way get through the worst times of his/her life and give 6. I am ready to allow mediation to remove the defects of my back some respect and dignity that the legal process seems to erode. client’s domestic battles created by fighting and litigation. Shon is the owner of Shon Cook Law, PC, which operates out of 7. I am humbled to listen to, rather than talk at, clients. a very cool building in Whitehall, Michigan, which was the first 8. I am willing to make a list of persons that I have harmed library in the city. Shon Cook Law, PC has a total of three at- and make amends to them, by offering my mediation ser- torneys covering Family Law, Bankrutpcy, Estate Planning, Real vices at a reduced rate. Estate and Business Formation.
12 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Professor Lex
By Harvey I. Hauer and Mark A. Snover Hauer & Snover
Dear Professor Lex, that was never agreed upon. Do you have any thoughts as to whether the obligation of my client is deductible? In one of my divorce cases, a settlement was placed on the record in court while counsel and the parties were attending a Pretrial. The representation of the settlement Dear Practitioner, with regard to spousal support that was placed on the re- Your question raises an interesting dilemma. cord was as follows: Commencing upon date of judgment, The Michigan Supreme Court has held“that the judiciary Plaintiff would receive spousal support in the amount of is without authority to modify unambiguous contracts or rebal- $4,000 per month. Defendant’s obligation would be ter- ance the contractual equities struck by contracting parties because minable upon the first of the following: 5 years from date fundamental principles of contract law preclude such subjective of judgment, Plaintiff’s death, or Plaintiff’s remarriage. I post hoc judicial determinations of ‘reasonableness’ as a basis upon drafted a judgment on behalf of my client, the Defendant, which courts may refuse to enforce unambiguous contractual and provided therein said obligation was deductible to my provisions.” Holmes v Holmes, 281 Mich App 575, 594, 760 client. Plaintiff’s counsel objects to said language saying NW2d 300 (2008) (citing Rory v Continental Ins. Co., 473
QDRO-Services, Attorney Mark Cherniak QDRO-SERVICES PREPARATION OF QDROs, EDROs, and other DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS
All phases of project handled by Michigan attorney with over 30 years experience COMPARE: ** $400 most orders flat fee ** Minimum 25% discount on same case additional orders after the first order ** Fee includes preparation, entry with the Court, submitting to Plan Administrator, and follow-up for acceptance (additional $50 if court certification required; $10 for e-filing) ** Review and analysis of other orders available ** Prompt response For more information please contact: Attorney Mark Cherniak NEW LOCATION LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. CHERNIAK, P.C. 22226 Garrison St., 2nd Floor, Dearborn, MI 48124-2208 (313) 722-4944; (313) 722-4176 (fax) Visit www.QDRO-Services.com (website) Email addresses: [email protected] or [email protected]
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 13 Mich 457, 461, 703 NW2d 23 (2005)). Holmes, therefore, The above response is not meant to serve as a solution to can be cited for the proposition that the judgment must reflect a case. That would require complete disclosure of all facts in the exact wording that was placed on the record. the case, including client consultation. Rather, the intent is to You should, however, look to the Internal Revenue Code. provide informal guidance based upon the facts that have been Spousal support payments are taxable under IRC 71 and de- presented. The inquiring lawyer bears full legal responsibility ductible under IRC 215 if certain requirements are satisfied. for determining the validity and use of the advice provided herein. Publication 504 of the Internal Revenue Service provides that payment to a spouse under a Judgment of Divorce is con- Please send questions for Professor Lex to Hhauer@hauer- sidered spousal support and is deductible if the spouses do snover.com. Include “Professor Lex” in the subject line. not file a joint return with each other and all of the following requirements are met: About the Authors 1. The payment is in cash (including checks or money or- Harvey I. Hauer, Hauer & Snover, PC, is a Fellow of the ders); American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the former pres- 2. The instrument does not designate the payment as not ident of the Michigan Chapter. He has also served as chairperson alimony; of the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section, the Michigan 3. The spouses are not members of the same household at Supreme Court Domestic Relations Court Rule Committee and the time the payments are made. (This requirement ap- the Oakland County Bar Association Family Law Committee. plies only if the spouses are legally separated under a de- He has been named by his peers to Best Lawyers in America, Super cree of divorce or separate maintenance); Lawyers and Leading Lawyers. He is a co-author of Michigan Family Law. 4. There is no liability to make any payment (in cash or property) after the death of the recipient spouse; and Mark A. Snover, Hauer & Snover, PC, practices exclusively family law. He has been selected by his peers as a Leading Law- 5. The payment is not treated as child support. yer in family law. He was selected to the National Advocates, From the facts you have provided, the above cited author- top 100 Lawyers. Mr. Snover is listed in Martindale Hubbell’s ity seems to provide you with an answer to your question. Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. He was also selected to the American Society of Legal Advocates, Top 100 Lawyers and The National Association of Distinguished Counsel’s, Top 1 Percent. Answer respectfully submitted by Harvey I. Hauer and Mark served on the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Council. Mark A. Snover. He is a frequent author in the family law arena.
FAMILY LAW SECTION Lifetime Achievement Award Winners
1988–Norman H. Robbins 1988–Maxine Board Virtue 1991–Hanley M. Gurwin
1994–Henry Baskin 1999–Richard S. Victor 2001–Edward D. Gold
2003–Fred Morganroth 2005–Katherine L. Barnhart 2009–Ronald Bookholder 2011–Justice Marilyn Kelly 2012–Jon T. Ferrier 2014–John F. Mills
The Family Law Section expresses its gratitude and appreciation for those extraordinary family law attorneys whose dedication, contributions, and leadership earned them the highest honor in Family Law: the Family Law Section Lifetime Achievement Award.
14 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Residence Roulette in the Jurisdiction Jungle: Where To Divide The Pension?
By Mark Sullivan
Introduction of the pension and other property, alimony, and – if appli- When a SM (servicemember) is facing a lawsuit in State A cable – custody, visitation and child support. This would be and he is living in State B, he needs to decide if there are any followed by a conference with a second attorney, located either options other than meeting the lawsuit head-on in terms of in State B (where John is living) or in State C (which is John’s his military retirement rights. A military pension, under 10 legal residence). USC 1408(c)(4), can only be divided in his domicile (or legal residence), in a state where he consents to the court’s actions, Shopping Around or in a state where he resides (not due to military orders). Let’s take a look at some differences, using the three above If he’s sued in his state of legal residence, that usually ends states as examples – the inquiry. The courts there have jurisdiction to divide the pension. • California is a community property state. The parties’ property acquired during the marriage is divided equal- If he’s sued elsewhere, then he needs to be able to compare ly. The other two are equitable distribution states, and – the probable outcome as to pension division in State A, if he while there is a presumption of equal division – the parties consents to the court’s jurisdiction over his pension, with di- can receive more or less than half if the case goes to court. vision of his pension in another state where he maintains his A settlement, of course, can result in an unequal division legal residence – whether that is State B, where he’s currently in any of the three states. living, or State C. And if he wants to bring a case in a different state, there’s the question of what impact, if any, that would • In California, a ten-year marriage is seen as a “long-term have on the case in State A – will it result in the case being dis- marriage” and lifetime alimony is a good possibility. It’s missed by the court or dropped by the spouse? Or will there 17 years in Florida for a “long-term marriage” and this now be TWO lawsuits (as if one were not expensive enough)? is a factor in the judge awarding lifetime alimony. No Who has the stamina, the time and the bankroll to fund two such rule exists in North Carolina and often the judge or lawyers in two states? parties will figure alimony based on half the length of the marriage or some other fraction. • In Florida, the court takes a “snapshot” of the retirement First (and Second) Opinions benefits earned at the time of the filing for divorce. What- Since there’s a lawsuit already pending in State A, it’s es- ever the earned benefit is (such as retirement for John as sential to consult with a lawyer there who can help analyze his an E-7 with 20 years of service at that time) would be di- exposure, his risks, the up-side and the down-side of going vided, even if he retires as an E-9 with 30 creditable years forward with the entire case there. Ideally the attorney would of service. In North Carolina the judge applies the “time be a specialist in family law if the state recognizes specializa- rule,” which is used in a majority of the states. Under the tion, as Florida, North Carolina and California do. Otherwise “time rule” Jane Doe, the wife, woul receive a share based the lawyer should be one whose practice is mostly family law. on 20 years of service divided by the total years at retire- And the lawyer should be willing to team up with a consultant ment for John multiplied by his actual retirement pay (not on the military side of things, since few attorneys can hold what he’d earned when they separated). In California, themselves out as experts in military divorce. Jane may wait until John retires and claim her share of the pension according to the “time rule,” or she can elect In the discussion with his lawyer in State A, John Doe a share of John’s retired pay as of the date of separation (our hypothetical servicemember) will need to discuss the (E-7 with over 20 years). This means the court will order timeline for responding to the lawsuit (if filing a response is John to start paying that money to her now, not when he recommended) and the results for John regarding the division retires.
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 15 • In North Carolina, the pension must be valued (usually default and not file an answer. Will this hurt his case? Can by a CPA, an actuary or an economist) before it’s divided he file an answer but move to dismiss the claim against his by the judge in a contested hearing. If there is no valua- pension? What if there is no explicit claim against the pen- tion by either of the parties, then the pension cannot be sion, only a general statement that Jane wants an equitable divided. There is no such rule in California or Florida. distribution of all of the parties’ property acquired during the This of course imposes an additional cost on Jane, since marriage? she is the one who wants to divide the pension. It also Another issue is whether the pension can be divided at imposes a harsh risk, since she gets nothing if her lawyer all. In Puerto Rico, a non-contributory pension (such as the is asleep at the switch and fails to get the valuation (or if military retirement program) cannot be divided in divorce. In she’s out of money and cannot hire a valuation expert). Arkansas, Indiana, and Alabama, a pension cannot be divide if • In Florida, if Jane fails to demand allocation of the Sur- it is not “vested,” which usually means that the servicemember vivor Benefit Plan, then the court probably won’t award has at least 20 years of creditable service. it and she’ll be out of luck if John dies before her. Florida court decisions state that the trial judge must explicitly Getting the Right Advice award SBP coverage for a former spouse, otherwise it is lost. In California, the view is that SBP is an integral part John’s immediate actions should be directed toward find- of the division of military retirement benefits. Even if it is ing the best legal advice as to his options. While John can get not awarded in the trial, the wife or ex-wife of John Doe fair results from the internet or from his local legal assistance can later ask for it to be allocated to her. North Carolina attorney at the office of the base staff judge advocate, he will case law is silent as to both of these approaches, as the is- be best served through a consultation, in person or, if neces- sue hasn’t arisen in the appellate courts. sary, by phone, with attorneys in each of the states where he can bring a case regarding divorce and property division. There are also numerous other differences among the states, including the issue of whether John can or should file John needs to start each consultation with a clear and con- an answer to the lawsuit. In some jurisdictions, this amounts cise explanation of the facts regarding the marriage and the to “consent” and thus John has just walked unknowingly separation. He should explain the finances, debts, assets and into accepting the courts jurisdiction to divide his pension. incomes of the parties, and any other matter brought up in the In other states, the rule is the opposite or there is no case law lawsuit papers. on the subject. John needs to know whether he can afford to
16 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 John also needs to clearly state his goals. What does he Residence and Reality want: a quick divorce, regardless of cost; no alimony; a fair di- John also needs to understand “legal residence” or domi- vision of property and a reasonable amount of alimony; and/ cile. This is John’s home state, the one where he votes, pays or custody of the children? The goals and priorities need to be state income taxes, and is eligible for in-state tuition for col- sorted out so the attorneys can get an idea of what’s essential lege. It often is where he does his banking, has a driver’s li- and what falls into the category of “I’d like that too.” cense, and has registered his car; however, these are also matters A copy of the lawsuit should be in the hands of the re- of convenience, and they may change with every assignment viewing attorney in advance of the consultation. It may be to a different state for some servicemembers. a good idea to have the lawyers consult with each other as to Legal residence is not necessarily “Home of Record.” The his chances in each jurisdiction and John should be in on the latter is only an administrative entry which the armed services conversation. use to designate where one’s household goods will be shipped at the end of one’s service. It may be the domicile of a service- Courts and Jurisdiction member, but it might not be. John not only needs to discuss goals and possible out- This is also a time of truth for John. Many servicemem- comes with the two (or more) attorneys; he also needs to talk bers claim Texas or Florida as their legal homes, since these about jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to hear the states (and others as well) do not impose state income taxes on case and render a decision in an order, judgment, or decree. servicemembers. But such a claim is a false one unless there are significant connections John Doe has with the claimed • Which state has jurisdiction over the military pension? state. It is essential that John lived there for a period of time As mentioned above, there are three jurisdictional tests sufficient to establish the intent to remain there (except for under federal law. military orders) and to return there at the end of military duty. • Which state has the jurisdiction to grant a divorce or dis- False domicile claims can only complicate the case and, as stat- solution? This is always the state in which a party has ed above, domicile is an essential element for divorce and one his or her legal residence. Could two states have divorce of three jurisdictional tests for military pension division. Get- jurisdiction? ting it right means reducing unnecessary time for the lawyer • If there are children, which state is their “home state,” and expenses for the client that is, the one where they have been living for the past six months? If there is no “home state,” then what state Conclusion has a significant connection with them and possesses sub- stantial evidence about their care and custody? These are In the end, John may decide to initiate his own case in a the two custody jurisdiction tests. different state, or he may be faced with the difficult decision of leaving out a “second front” since he doesn’t have the time, • Which state, if there are children, has jurisdiction to de- the money, or the will for two different lawsuits. This is his cide child support? There are eight different tests, any one choice and no one else’s. And he owes it to himself to get the of which would allow a state to determine child support. informed opinion of lawyers who can guide him through this • Which state has jurisdiction over spousal support, some- critical process and help him see what’s best for him in these times called alimony or maintenance? divorce decisions.
It’s important for John to understand that there may be two or more states which can exercise jurisdiction over his About the Author matrimonial matters. Sometimes it’s a tug-of-war between Mr. Sullivan is a retired Army Reserve JAG colonel. He two states, both of which claim the power to decide an is- practices family law in Raleigh, North Carolina and is the author sue. Sometimes is clear that one–not the other–has jurisdic- of The Military Divorce Handbook (ABA, 2nd Ed, 2011) and tion over an issue. That issue cannot be decided by two states many internet resources on military family law issues. A Fellow with conflicting results and may only be determined in one of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Mr. Sullivan state. For example, if State C were John’s legal residence, and has been a board-certified specialist in family law since 1989. He he did nothing in State A’s litigation, this would amount to works with attorneys and judges nationwide as a consultant and consent to the division of his pension. In this situation, only an expert witness on military divorce issues in drafting military the courts of State C could enter a proper order to divide the pension division orders. He can be reached at 919-832-8507 military pension. and [email protected].
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 17 Fundamentals of Divorce MODERATOR Monika Holzer Sacks Practice & Procedure Nichols Sacks Slank Sendelbach & Buiteweg PC, Ann Arbor Cosponsored by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan
09/22/15 Plymouth & Live Webcast | 9:00am–4:45pm CLE: 6.25 | Level: Basic CONTRIBUTORS On-Demand Available 10/13/15 Marjory B. Cohen Mogill Posner & Experienced practitioners share their knowledge through real-life, Cohen, Detroit practice-proven approaches. This seminar provides all the essential tools to successfully handle divorce cases. Section members save Hon. Charlene M. Elder 3rd Circuit Court—Family $20 on registration. Domestic Division, Detroit
Learn to: Kyle Joseph Quinn • Set up and run your divorce practice efficiently with tips on creating a RizzoBryan PC, Grand Rapids streamlined intake process Michael B. Quinn • Draft complete pleadings to start the divorce action Miller Johnson, Grand Rapids • Use informal and formal discovery tools successfully • Value and divide property, including retirement benefits, personal property, and real estate B. Andrew Rifkin The Law Firm of John F. • Employ effective litigation and ADR strategies to resolve your cases Schaefer, Birmingham • Prepare and enforce divorce judgments and modify them, when necessary Todd S. Selin Mallory Lapka Scott & Selin PLLC, Lansing
REGISTER TODAY Elizabeth A. Solomon www.icle.org/info/divorce | 877-229-4350 Nichols Sacks Slank Sendelbach & Buiteweg PC, Ann Arbor
Amy A. Yu Amy Yu PC, Farmington Hills
AVAILABLE IN THE REQUIRED PREMIUM PARTNERSHIP SEMINAR
18 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 6GA TAX TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Tailored Installment Payments to Balance the Scales without Breaking the Bank
By Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA
The author’s recent experience indicates (1) the high value value of the business. She demands payment over 7 years, re- of using “tailored” installment payments to balance a prop- sulting in monthly payments of $2,050, almost twice what H erty settlement involving a business interest and (2) the lack proposed. of awareness of many family law practitioners of the utility of H claims he cannot afford to pay that much. The effects this technique. of new competition has reduced profits such that the business Thus, below is a repeat of a Tax Trends column published has not been able to pay bonuses of late. So, cash will be tight a few years ago. over the next few years with the alimony and child support obligations. The value of a closely held business or professional practice often dwarfs the value of other marital assets. If there are not The attorneys meet with their joint CPA expert and work sufficient suitable assets to award the non-owner spouse, install- out the following payment terms to achieve both objectives. ment payments are frequently used to balance the settlement. • No payments of principal and interest for three years. In structuring the payments, two objectives often com- Adding the $18,000 of unpaid compound interest brings pete with one another: the principal to $169,655 as of the beginning of the fourth year. 1. Don’t Kill the Golden Goose - It is important not to impose an undue strain on the owner’s cash flow, part of • Years four and five - $1,500 per month which may also be required for spousal and/or child sup- • At end of year five - $50,000 balloon payment port. • Years six and seven - $2,000 per month 2. Don’t Make Me Wait ‘Til I’m Old and Gray - On the • At end of seven years – $55,500 balloon payment. other hand, it is generally not fair to require the non-own- er spouse to wait a long period of time to receive his or her share of the marital value of the business. Tailored to Fit - The above illustrates a way in which pay- ments can be tailored to accomplish both objectives. The use Tailoring payments around other divorce obligations is a of balloon payments enables the non-owner spouse to receive way to achieve both objectives. his or her share within a reasonable time frame. It also gives the owner spouse ample time to make arrangements to fund Example the balloon payments. As part of their divorce settlement, H and W have agreed that he will pay her $200,000 for her half interest in his busi- Practice Pointers ness. He will also pay combined transitional alimony and Consider Section 71 Payments—If there is a meaningful child support for their youngest child totaling $30,000 for difference in brackets, taking the transitional alimony into ac- each of the next 3 years. count, determine if it is advantageous to convert some or all H receives an annual salary of $60,000, supplemented by of the monthly payments to Section 71 payments. This can be a bonus depending on company profit. He proposes that he done without converting the two balloon payments to Section pay the $200,000 by transferring a sufficient amount of his 71 payments. 401(k) plan to net W $50,000 after tax and that the $150,000 Provide for Acceleration—It is generally advisable to balance be paid over 15 years with interest at 4%, resulting in provide for acceleration of the balance due in the event the monthly payments of $1,110. owner sells his interest in the business or the company receives W responds that this is unacceptable; that it is unreason- a substantial influx of cash available to the owner, such as from able to expect her to wait so long for her share of the marital refinancing.
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 19 Restrictions May Be in Order—In addition to normal Aware of the IRS’ position, H’s CPA in the above example security provisions, it is sometimes advisable to place restric- suggests that there are two ways to avoid the loss of the interest tions on (1) the amount of compensation and/or distributions deduction. to the owner spouse and (2) the investment of business funds 1. One approach is to qualify the interest component of in non-operating assets (e.g., cabin up north or Florida condo the payments as Section 71 payments by providing H’s “used for business”). Usually this can be done only if the own- obligation to pay the interest terminates in the event er spouse has a controlling interest. of her death. This also results in deducting what is ac- Provide for Prepayment Option— Finally, it is often ap- tually interest as alimony, an “above the line” deduction propriate to provide for prepayment of the obligation at the which reduces the income subject to Michigan income option of the owner spouse. tax. However, W’s successors-in-interest would be short- changed if she died early in the payment period. Saving the Interest Deduction 2. The second approach is to “impute” interest at a rate The IRS has taken the position that interest paid on a approximating the after-tax equivalent of the agreed divorce related obligation from one ex-spouse to the other is on interest rate. The IRS and U.S. Tax Court have ruled “personal” interest and, hence, non-deductible. This results in that the imputed interest rules otherwise applicable to be- a tax “whipsaw” since the payee ex-spouse receiving the inter- low market or no interest loans do not apply to divorce est must report it as taxable income notwithstanding that the related obligations between ex-spouses. Under this ap- payer cannot deduct it. proach, there is no loss of interest on the payee’s death. There have been a couple of tax cases in which, under the circumstances of the case, the IRS position was rejected So, H’s CPA proposes using 2.75% unstated, “baked in” and the interest deduction was allowed as investment inter- interest rate as the approximate after-tax equivalent of 4.00%. est expense. However, the IRS has not acquiesced with these This is done by running the amortization schedule with decisions and, further, investment interest expense can only 2.75% as the interest rate to determine the payments. And, in be deducted to the extent of investment income (e.g., interest, the settlement agreement the obligation to make the resulting dividends, etc.). payments is stated without reference to any interest rate. Substituting 2.75% for 4% on the $150,000 obligation results in the following changes within the target seven year period: 2.75% 4% Payments years 1-3 0 0 Payments years 4 and 5 1,500 1,500 Balloon at end of year 5 40,000 50,000 Payments years 6 and 7 2,000 2,000 Balloon at end of year 7 40,219 55,500
A prepayment provision with unstated, “baked in” interest Your Real Property Valuation Team! would include a prepayment discount equal to the unstated rate of interest (2.75% in this case) applied to the outstand- Jumana Judeh, MAI, CCIM, MRICS ing balance at the time of prepayment over the period during which the balance was otherwise scheduled to be paid. ValuaƟon Services: Expert tes�mony Forensic appraisal review Prepara�on of cross examina�on (313) 277-1986 About the Author 22952 Outer Drive Par�al or full takings Joe Cunningham General consulta�on Dearborn, MI 48124 has over 25 years of experience specializing Easements www.judehonline.com in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valua- [email protected] Bankruptcy tion, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing set- Divorce Arbitra�on/Media�on tlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous Credible—Experience—Reliable. journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy though his practice is statewide.
20 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Pensions and retirement accounts are often the largest assets divided in a divorce; don’t trust your orders to just anyone… THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND PROVEN RESULTS! QDROExpress A Full Service QDRO Firm Why Choose QDROExpress?
Attorneys – The Critical Difference: Consider the risk of delegating the drafting of technical legal documents to non-lawyers. Our team of 4 experienced family law attorneys, led by nationally renowned QDRO expert Robert Treat, carefully research and thoughtfully draft your orders to properly apply the law.
30 Day Guarantee: Our process is designed to get your Order to you in two weeks or less. …and…your Order is FREE if we don’t send it to you within 30 days from the time we have payment and the necessary information.
Expertise in Military Pension Division Orders • Over 10,000 orders prepared • Prompt Personal Attention • Hourly Consulting – assistance with judgment language; plan information and advice to give you an edge in mediation and settlement negotiations • Review of orders and judgment language drafted by others • Pension Valuations, Expert testimony, Affidavits and Opinion Letters • All types of retirement plans – private sector and public sector (including state, federal and military) plans • Guaranteed Acceptance – continued service until order is qualified
Click Here to contact Robert Treat Click Here to visit our Website
22919 Eureka Road, Taylor, MI 48180 Tel: (734) 675-8207 • Fax: (734) 671-3741 Recent Appellate Decisions
Summarized by the State Bar Family Law Section Amicus Committee Members*
Third-Party Custody contest the uncle’s physical custody of the children. Because Howard v Blackburn (published per curiam opinion) the case arose due to the father’s filing of the motion, the trial Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court court had the authority to award the uncle custody of the chil- Docket No. 323124, May 19, 2015 dren over the parental presumption if clear and convincing evidence showed that custody with the uncle was in the best In this third-party custody case, the father of two minor interests of the child under MCL 722.25(1). The father did children appealed the trial court’s grant of custody to deceased not challenge the trial court’s best interest analysis. Therefore, mother’s brother. The parents divorced in 2006 and shared the trial court’s award was not in error. legal custody, with mother having primary physical custody. A few months prior to her death in 2013, the children moved The Court of Appeals also disagreed with the father’s ar- in with their uncle (the mother’s brother). The father filed an gument that the trial court ignored the parental presumption emergency ex parte motion to enforce the judgment of divorce and conducted a best-interest hearing. The Court of Appeals and have the children returned to him. The uncle was served reiterated that though there is a presumption in favor of cus- and ordered to appear. In the uncle’s response to the father’s tody with a parent, the presumption may be rebutted by clear motion, he argued that the father lived in a one-bedroom and convincing evidence. Finally, the Court of Appeals also apartment in an assisted living facility, and suffered from brain disagreed with the father’s claim that the trial court forced tumors and multiple sclerosis. The uncle had filed petitions him to carry the burden of persuasion during the proceedings for guardianship and conservatorship over the children. At because it expressed obvious concern for the father’s fitness the hearing, the father’s sister spoke for him because he could as a parent. The Court of Appeals, quotingHunter v Hunter, not speak well. He did state that he really loved his children 484 Mich 247, 264 (2009), held that “a natural parent’s fit- and wanted them to be with him. The hearing was adjourned. ness is an intrinsic component of a trial court’s evaluation of The father retained an attorney, and the trial court appointed the best interest factors” and concerns regarding fitness “are a guardian ad litem for the children. The guardian ad litem of paramount importance in custody determinations.” In this reported that though the children loved their father, his medi- case, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s concerns cal conditions would prevent him taking care of the children, regarding the father’s fitness were well-established in fact due and the father did not even know where the children went to to his living situation, his medical concerns, and his belief that school or where they lived. The father even stated that the chil- the children could take care of themselves. dren could take care of themselves. The father argued, though, that the uncle did not have standing and could not be granted Other Custody Opinions custody over his parental presumption. At the evidentiary hearing, the father refused to put on witnesses, but the uncle Bray v Bray (unpublished) did testify. The trial court concluded that after its analysis of Lower Court: Marquette Circuit Court the best interest factors that the uncle had proven by clear and Docket No. 324402, May 19, 2015 convincing evidence that awarding the uncle custody was in The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order deny- the best interest of the children. ing the mother’s motion to change custody because the trial On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s court’s finding that there was not proper cause or change in award of third party custody. First, the Court of Appeals clari- circumstances warranting a change in custody was not against fied, quoting Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565-66 (1984), the great weight of the evidence. The mother’s allegations re- that while a third party may not “create a child custody ‘dis- garding smoking, alcohol use, and physical abuse by the father pute,’ by simply filing a complaint in circuit court alleging were not different than during the last custody hearing and that giving custody to the third party is in the ‘best interest of the addition of a step-parent without evidence of the impact the child,’” the situation in this case is distinguishable because of the relationship on the children was not a material change the father created the dispute by filing the ex parte motion to in circumstances.
22 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Patterson v Patterson (unpublished) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Lower Court: Sanilac Circuit Court Sulieman v Fisher (unpublished) Docket No. 325368, May 14, 2015 Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Docket 320585, May 26, 2015 the mother’s motion to change custody of the parties’ child This case has a long and contentious history in the trial because (1) the trial court’s finding that the proposed 70-mile court and on appeal in both Michigan and Wisconsin. The move and change of school would alter the child’s established trial court had entered a judgment of divorce. In the first ap- custodial environment of the father who was very “hands-on” peal (Docket No. 299212, issued April 11, 2013), the Court in the child’s life was not against the great weight of the evi- of Appeals “concluded that [the wife] had properly filed for dence and (2) the trial court’s findings regarding the best inter- divorce in Wisconsin under that state’s residency rules,” such est factors were not against the great weight of the evidence. that the Michigan court should have refrained from “reassert- Specifically with regards to the best interest factors, the Court ing jurisdiction...and declined to reopen the case.” The Court of Appeals held “there is nothing inherent in living with par- of Appeals, thus, vacated the divorce judgment. After the first ents/grandparents that makes the home environment unsta- appeal, the parties filed multiple divorce actions against each ble,” her statement that she could improve the child’s life with other, one of which was the husband’s divorce action in the a new job was merely speculative, her argument regarding the instant case. The wife also tried to pursue a divorce action in permanence of the family unit incorrectly analyzed the accept- Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin court dismissed it as a “forum ability of the home rather than permanence of the family unit, non conveniens.” and comparing the two schools’ quality under the “catch-all” factor was not necessary because she did not offer evidence to In the husband’s Wayne Circuit divorce case, the trial court corroborate her assertions that the proposed school was better. granted the wife’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction under MCL 552.9(1) because both the wife and the husband were residents of Wisconsin for Child Support the 180 days preceding the divorce filing. Apparently, the wife Lee v Smith (published opinion by Judge Gadola) had moved from Michigan to Wisconsin two weeks prior to the Lower Court: Genesee Circuit Court husband’s filing of the instant divorce action and the trial court Docket 320123, May 19, 2015 found that the wife had established residence in Wisconsin. The Court of Appeals resolved whether a parent’s obliga- On appeal, the Court of Appeals examined the 180-day tion to pay child support continues beyond the child’s eigh- state residency requirement of MCL 552.9(1). The Court teenth birthday, and held that it does. When the child turned noted that it had previously equated the term “resided” with 18 years of age, he was a full-time high school student and the concept of “residence and domicile, both of which require taking sufficient credits to graduate. The trial court’s order an intent to remain.” The Court of Appeals held that the trial required the father to continue paying child support while the court did not clearly err in concluding that the wife intended child attended high school. to remain in Wisconsin based on the testimony adduced at The Court of Appeals analyzed MCL 552.605b, which the evidentiary hearing, including that the wife “(1) obtained authorizes support beyond 18 years for a child enrolled in high Wisconsin driver’s license; (2) surrendered her Michigan driver’s school until he is 19 years and 6 months of age. Subsection (2) license; (3) found housing in Wisconsin; (4) moved into, fur- of the Act provides the general authority to award post-major- nished, lived in, and slept at the Wisconsin home (October 18- ity support. The act further provides in subsection (5) that a 27, 2013); (5) established a Wisconsin mailing address; (6) no “provision contained in a judgment or an order under this act longer had employment in Detroit, nor employment opportu- before, on, or after September 30, 2001 that provides for the nities there; (7) had a Detroit home that was in foreclosure; (8) support of a child after the child reaches 18 years of age is valid initiated efforts to obtain certifications and find employment in and enforceable if 1 or more of the following apply: [setting Wisconsin; and (9) that [the wife] intended to make Wisconsin forth various scenarios where the provision is contained in the her new residence.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judgment or order].” The father argued that Subsection (5) court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. precludes a court from imposing child support under Subsec- tion (2) unless the parties have an agreement for post-majority Dismissal of Post-Judgment Claims support. The Court of Appeals rejected that interpretation of the statute and held that the two subsections worked as inde- Lemaux v Lemaux (unpublished) pendent grounds for awarding post-majority support. Accept- Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court ing the father’s interpretation of Subsection (5) would make Docket No. 320236, May 21, 2015 Subsection (2) nugatory. The Court of Appeals affirmed the In this case, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s trial court’s child support order. order dismissing the ex-wife’s post-judgment claim seeking a
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 23 portion of the ex-husband’s pension and employment bene- during the proceedings, that he had to invade his property fits. The parties married in 1979 and the wife filed for divorce award to support himself; had the ability to secure employ- against the husband in 1992. Because he did not appear, even ment support himself; and inaccurately argued that the wife’s after three weeks publication of notice, the trial court entered a budget equally applied to him, as their monetary obligations default judgment, reserving the issue of the wife’s entitlement post-divorce were significantly different. The Court of Appeals to the husband’s employment benefits and pension rights. In also upheld the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to the hus- 2012, the ex-wife filed a motion seeking to assess her inter- band because he did not establish need, nor the wife’s ability est in the employment benefits and pension. The court held to pay his fees considering her own significant obligations. The argument where both parties were present and both parties Court of Appeals refused to rule on the wife’s request for attor- filed supplemental briefing as ordered regarding whether the ney fees because she did not file a cross-appeal and her request ex-wife’s claim was time barred. At a status conference where for appellate fees because it should have been done by motion both parties were present, the trial court suggested mediation under MCR 7.211(C)(8). and ordered the parties to update the court. The ex-wife did not call by the requested date. The trial court scheduled a sta- Motion for Relief from Judgment of Divorce Provision tus conference, but the ex-wife and her counsel did not appear. The trial court, therefore, sua sponte dismissed the ex-wife’s Lechner v Lechner (unpublished) claim without prejudice and later denied her motion to rein- Lower Court: Chippewa Circuit Court state the case. Docket 323892, May 19, 2015 The Court of Appeals agreed with the ex-wife on appeal The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing her husband’s motion for relief from judgment dividing the mari- case under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals noted tal estate. The parties divorced in 2007 by default judgment that while the ex-wife inaccurately argued that the trial court when husband did not answer. The husband filed a motion for lacked authority to sua sponte dismiss her case, as the trial relief from judgment in 2008, and after a lengthy procedural court’s authority to do so is expressly codified under MCR history in the trial court and on appeal, the Court of Appeals 2.504(B)(1), the trial court abused its discretion. In this case, remanded to the trial court for an equitable distribution of there was no evidence whether the absence of the ex-wife and all the marital property. (Docket No. 301380, issued June 8, her counsel were accidental and willful and no evidence that 2011). A trial on remand eventually occurred in September the ex-husband was prejudiced by the ex-wife and her counsel’s 2013. The case was further complicated by the fact that the failure to appear. Additionally, the record did not reflect a his- husband was then in a mental institution and facing federal tory of deliberate delay. In fact, the ex-wife had “fully partici- and state criminal charges. In a companion case, the husband pated” in arguments, supplemental briefing, and other status also sued his wife and her attorney for “alienation of property.” conferences. The trial court also apparently failed to consider (Docket No. 321250, issued on May 21, 2015) (affirming the other, less drastic measures. The trial court’s reasoning for the trial court’s order dismissing the action for lack of subject mat- dismissal that “[t]his is not the first time Plaintiff’s Counsel ter jurisdiction). failed to appear for a scheduled conference,” was insufficient. After hearing testimony, the trial court awarded the wife Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated the order dismissing $2000 in attorneys fees for her husband’s non-compliance with the ex-wife’s claim and remanded for further proceedings. discovery orders and awarded the husband various equipment associated with his businesses, along with the airplanes and Spousal Support personal vehicles in his possession. The trial court then offset the property award with a credit to the wife for $265,650. Rude v Rude (unpublished) The trial court also allocated a collectible debt to husband in Lower Court: Oakland Circuit Court the amount of $150,000. Additionally, the trial court divided Docket No. 319291, May 5, 2015 the parties’ interest in a tourist attraction known as the “Mys- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award to the tery Spot,” awarding the motel/restaurant property to the wife husband of modifiable, rehabilitative spousal support for three and the adjacent 67-acre parcel to the husband. Overall, the years of $2,000 a month for the first year, $1,500 a month for husband received $573,150 in assets and the wife received the second year, and $1,000 a month for the third year after $210,400. The husband filed a motion for relief from judg- a nearly 30-year marriage because the husband did not act ment, accusing his ex-wife of “manipulating local authorities as a typical stay-at-home parent, but instead voluntarily and into charging him with a state felony, rendering him ineligible unilaterally decided to remain unemployed; did not have evi- to possess explosives,” and then reporting him to authorities dence to support his argument regarding the breakdown of the for possessing explosives, which he used in his quarry business. marriage; did not establish, in part, based on contrary conduct He also alleged newly discovered evidence that his ex-wife had
24 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 “converted funds and hidden them in a secret bank account.” judgment of divorce. When the husband sought to compel the The trial court denied the motion for relief as all the issues had wife to sign off on a deed to the property, the wife sought relief been raised at trial. from judgment on the grounds that the transfer was a fraudu- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. lent conveyance. The trial court denied the wife’s request and Although the husband was incarcerated at the time of the sanctioned the wife with attorneys fees. 2013 trial, he had counsel from 2011 through trial. The hus- The Court of Appeals held that the wife’s motion was not band also failed to comply with discovery orders. The Court of timely under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) for fraud because she did Appeals then reviewed challenges pertaining to specific items not raise the issue within one year of the entry of the judg- in the marital property division, but held that the trial court ment of divorce. In addition, the judgment of divorce in- did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on any of the cluded a Property Rights Release, by which the parties “release grounds presented. each other from any and all claims that they may have against each other except the obligations that are stated in this agree- Bedford v Abushmaies (unpublished) ment. Said release shall include, but not be limited to, any Lower Court: Kalamazoo Circuit Court intentional and/or unintentional acts...” This release served as Docket 319780 & 321912, May 19, 2015 a bar to the wife’s request for post judgment relief. The Court The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order de- of Appeals also affirmed the sanctions award against the wife. nying the wife’s motion to set aside the judgment of divorce. Several years following the entry of the judgment, the wife discovered that the husband had transferred certain property * Liisa R. Speaker, Speaker Law Firm, PLLC, wrote the sum- to his sister after the divorce action was filed and had the prop- maries for the June/July 2015 Journal, with the assistance of erty transferred back to him one day after the entry of the associate attorney, Megen E. Miller.
MELLIN ROBINSON, PC 1755 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084 248.614.9005 [email protected] Serving Oakland, Macomb & www.mellinrobinson.com Wayne Counties
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 25 Family Law Political Action Committee
In 1997, a voluntary Political Action Committee (PAC) was formed known as the Family Law Political Action Committee. The PAC advocates for and against legislation that directly affects family law practitioners, and the PAC lobbyist has contact with, and access to, legislators involved with family law issues. Contributions to the PAC are one way for you to help influence legislation that directly affects your practice as a family lawyer. The Family Law PAC is the most important PAC, since it affects the lives of so many people, adults and children alike. Your assistance and contribution is needed to ensure that this PAC’s voice will continue to be heard and valued by the legislators in both the State Senate and House of Representatives. Please help the PAC by making a contribution today!
(PLEASE COPY AND USE THIS FORM)
Send the completed form and check to: Ross Stancati, Stancati & Associates, PC, 121 W. Cedar St, Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Attached is my check payable to the Family Law PAC in the amount of: $50 $100 $150 Other
Name and P–number
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone Fax E –mail
Please make your check payable to Family Law PAC. Please, no corporate checks. Thank you for your assistance!
26 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 Legislative Update
By William Kandler, Lobbyist Kandler Reed Khoury and Muchmore
The Michigan legislature is about to wrap up what is, pos- transportation infrastructure. Word from the House and Sen- sibly, its greatest responsibility—the annual state budget. It ate leadership offices is that the legislature will work on that appears that it will once again be completed in early June. over the summer. Looks like it is going to be a long, hot sum- Early completion of the appropriation process has become mer in Lansing! the norm under Governor Snyder. Since the 2015-16 fiscal As always, the legislature has still found time to address year does not begin until October 1, June completion gives family law issues. The deployed parent legislation (SB 9, HB those entities (mainly state departments, schools and univer- 4079 and HB 4482) are on their way to the Governor’s desk. sities) plenty of time to plan for the next fiscal year, based As you may recall, these bills would modify the requirements upon allocated revenues. Just a couple of weeks ago, after the for a change of custody or parenting time motion when a par- defeat of Proposal 1, the transportation funding ballot pro- ent is on active duty. As this legislation was initially proposed posal, the thinking in Lansing was that the budget process during the last legislature, the Family Law Section was op- would be tossed into turmoil. “Where will the money come posed. However, through a very positive working relationship from to fix the roads?” “Will the budget be hacked to pieces with the sponsors of the bills, and Senate Judiciary Committee in order to accumulate funds for road maintenance?” Every Chair, Senator Rick Jones, we were able to get the bills to a entity that depends on state revenues to pursue its mission version that the Council could support. was fearful of what the legislature’s answer to those questions might be. Then the May Revenue Estimating Conference An important Family Law Council initiative, the anti- came to the rescue. trolling bill, SB 351, sponsored by Senator Rick Jones, was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee (similar legisla- Each May, the House and Senate Fiscal Agencies and the tion passed the Senate late last year, but was too late to receive State Treasurer are required by statute to meet in a revenue consideration in the House). The bill would amend the Re- estimating conference to arrive at a consensus projection on vised Judicature Act to prohibit a person from intentionally the amount of revenue available for the next fiscal year budget contacting an individual whom the person knew to be a party appropriation. That figure becomes the basis for the spend- to a divorce action filed with a court, or an immediate family ing plans contained in the various appropriation bills. This member of that individual, with a direct solicitation to pro- May, the consensus was that state general fund revenues would vide a legal service until the expiration of 21 days after the date be up by about $400 million during the current fiscal year. the summons was issued. Rather than using that “new” revenue to fill gaps in existing programs and expenditure categories, the Governor and the A known violation of the bill would be a misdemeanor legislature decided to dedicate that revenue for transportation. punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 for a first offense. A So, now the legislature has only to figure out how to raise second or subsequent violation would be a misdemeanor pun- the remainder of the $1.2 billion that the Governor wants for ishable by up to one year’s imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $5,000. The bill is now before the full Senate.
Legislation that the Family Law Section is Following: Intro Date Bill No. Bill Description Sponsor Status Position 1/20/2015 9 Military Duty Change of Custody Filing Sen Jones House Floor Support+ 3/24/2015 227 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Sen Hertel Senate Judiciary Support 3/24/2015 228 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Sen Knezek Senate Judiciary Support 3/24/2015 229 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Sen Smith Senate Judiciary Support 3/26/2015 249 Cross-Reference to ANF Sen Hune House Floor Support
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 27 4/14/2015 252 Unemployment Benefits of DV Victims Sen Hertel Sen Commerce TBD 4/14/2015 253 Limit Mediation for Certain DV Relations Sen Bieda Senate Judiciary NP 4/14/2015 254 Alternate Service in Case of PPO Sen Bieda Senate Judiciary TBD 4/14/2015 255 Housing Discrimination of DV Victims Sen Warren Senate Judiciary TBD 4/14/2015 256 Allow Use of Sick Leave to Escape DV Sen Ananich Sen Commerce TBD 4/14/2015 257 Address Confidentiality for DV Victims Sen Emmons Senate Judiciary TBD 4/14/2015 258 Best Interest Factors for DV Cases Sen Warren Senate FSHS TBD 1/15/2015 4023 Maximum Allowable Time in Child Care Rep Kosowski House FCS Oppose 1/15/2015 4024 Birth or Adoption Leave Act Rep Kosowski House Commerce NP 1/15/2015 4028 Responsible Father Registry Rep Kosowski House FCS Support 1/27/2015 4071 Military Duty Change of Custody Filing Rep Barrett House Floor Support+ 2/3/2015 4132 Right to First Refusal of Child Care Rep Geiss House FCS Oppose 2/3/2015 4133 Second Parent Adoption Rep Irwin House FCS Support+ 2/5/2015 4141 Mandatory Joint Custody Rep Runestad House FCS Oppose 2/10/2015 4170 Exclusion of Veteran Disability Comp Rep Franz House Judiciary Oppose 2/12/2015 4188 Religious and Moral Objections to Adoption Rep LaFontaine Senate Floor Oppose 2/12/2015 4189 Religious and Moral Objections to Adoption Rep Santana Senate Floor Oppose 2/12/2015 4190 Religious and Moral Objections to Adoption Rep Leutheuser Senate Floor Oppose 2/19/2015 4223 Require Adoption Leave Rep Kosowski House Commerce Support 3/24/2015 4374 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Rep Irwin House FCS Support 3/24/2015 4375 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Rep Zemke House FCS Support 3/24/2015 4376 Legalize Same-Sex Marriage Rep Wittenberg House FCS Support 3/26/2015 4411 Protections for Domestic Violence Victims Rep Singh House Judiciary Support 3/26/2015 4412 Protections for Domestic Violence Victims Rep Irwin House Judiciary Support 3/26/2015 4413 Address Confidentiality for DV Victims Rep Hovey-Wright House Judiciary Support 3/26/2015 4414 Allow Use of Sick Leave to Escape DV Rep Brinks House Commerce Support 4/22/2015 4476 Limit Mediation for Certain DV Relations Rep Santana House CJ NP 4/22/2015 4477 Alternate Service in Case of PPO Rep Kesto House CJ Oppose+ 4/22/2015 4478 Harming Animals Enjoined to PPO Rep Kosowski House CJ Support 4/22/2015 4479 Penalties for Assault of a Pregnant Woman Rep Price House CJ NP 4/22/2015 4480 Best Interest Factors for DV Cases Rep Heise House CJ Support 4/22/2015 4481 Custody in Assault/Abuse Conception Rep Lyons House CJ Oppose 4/22/2015 4482 Military Duty Change of Custody Filing Rep Kesto House Floor Support 3/24/2015 HJR L Prohibition of Same-Sex Marriage Rep Moss House FCS Support
Michigan Family Law Appeals Scott Bassett Quality and Experience
248-232-3840 - Telephone 248-928-0355 - Fax [email protected] www.michiganfamilylawappeals.com A Michigan Virtual Law Practice
28 Michigan Family Law Journal June/July 2015 FAMILY LAW SECTION
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section shall be to study the laws, court rules and procedures pertaining to the family and all relationships relevant thereto, including but not limited to marriage, divorce, separation, adoption, paternity and the rights of minor children; to study, report upon and recommend proposed and necessary legislation and court rules, and to promote throughout the State of Michigan the legal education of members of the Bar and the public Family by Ken Scott, photographer on the problems relating to the family by sponsoring meetings, institutes and conferences devoted to such problems; Membership Form by the preparation and dissemination of Section No: 09 pamphlets and brochures with respect thereto; and by preparing and sponsoring $60 Member $10 Law Student and publishing legal writings in this field. Membership will be paid through September 30 of the current fiscal year MISSION STATEMENT: The Family Law P #:______Section of the State Bar of Michigan Name: ______provides education, information and analysis about issues of concern through meetings, Your Firm/Organization:______seminars, its website, public service Address: ______programs, and publication of the Michigan Family Law Journal. Membership in the City:______Section is open to all members of the State State: _____ Zip: ______Bar of Michigan. Statements made on behalf of the Section do not necessarily reflect the Telephone: ( _____ ) ______views of the State Bar of Michigan. E-mail address: ______BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP: Enclosed is check # ______for $______• Receive the highly acclaimed Michigan Family Law Journal and keep abreast of Please make check payable to: State Bar of Michigan new developments in family law. Please bill my: Visa MasterCard • Access to Family Law listserv.
Card #:______• Attend Family Law seminars at reduced cost, including the Family Law Institute. Expiration date:______Please print name as it appears on card: • Participate in a fast growing area of the law. ______• Support S.M.I.L.E. and other pro bono ______Authorized signature programs of the Section.
Mail your check and completed membership form to: • Receive the optional Membership Attn: Finance Dept., State Bar of Michigan Certificate, suitable for display, at an Michael Franck Building additional cost of $5. 306 Townsend Street, Lansing, MI 48933 Fax (ONLY if paying by credit card) the completed form and credit card information to (517) 346-6365. Rev. 012014
June/July 2015 Michigan Family Law Journal 29 Michigan Family Law Journal Family Law Section NON-PROFIT ORG State Bar of Michigan U.S. POSTAGE Michael Franck Building PAID 306 Townsend Street LANSING, MI Lansing, Michigan 48933-2012 PERMIT NO. 191