Legally Haunted House

It’s officially the spookiest month of the year, and I wanted to share a 35-year-old ghost story with you. In the 1991 case Stambovsky v Ackley, a haunted house was up for sale at 1 Laveta Place, Nyack, New York. It’s a gorgeous 1890 Victorian home overlooking the Hudson River and boasting over 4,600 square feet of living space – most people would jump at the opportunity to purchase it. There’s just one problem – permanent poltergeist occupants.

Jeffrey Stambovsky contracted to purchase the home when Helen Ackley listed it in 1989 but wanted out when he heard it was possessed with spirits. He sued to rescind the contract of sale, arguing that he had no knowledge the home was allegedly haunted. Jeffrey was from the Big Apple and hadn’t heard any of the Nyack folklore surrounding 1 Laveta Place. The hauntings were so widely known that Readers’ Digest and other publications had reported on the mysterious happenings. The ghosts were known to wake up Helen’s daughter by shaking her bed, slamming doors and walking around.

You can tell that the court had a blast drafting its opinion, which includes references to the movie Ghost Busters and plenty of puns. Much of the discussion centers around caveat emptor, which is the legal principle that the buyer is solely responsible to assess the quality of goods being purchased. Basically, Helen argued it was on Jeffrey to learn the home was supposedly haunted, and she had no obligation to let the black cat out of the bag. The court noted that caveat emptor “is not so all-encompassing a doctrine of common law as to render every act of nondisclosure immune from redress, whether legal or equitable.”

The court reasoned that Jeffrey met his obligation to inspect the premises and search for any title issues, but it would be unlikely any inspection would have apprised him of the home’s paranormal past. Helen clearly knew of the poltergeist problem and fostered the folklore through the publications about the home’s spiritual residents. The court opined “[h]aving undertaken to inform the public-at-large, to whom she has no legal relationship, about the supernatural occurrences on her property, she may be said to owe no less a duty to her contract vendee.” Ultimately, the court modified the prior ruling which dismissed Jeffrey’s case and reinstated his action.

The home has changed owners multiple times since Helen was required to disclose the revenant residents, and reports indicate none have experienced anything paranormal on the property. Still, one wonders if the home will ever be truly vacant.

School is for parents too

Back to school is here, much to children’s dismay and parents’ delight. If you are going through a divorce or family law matter, get to know your children’s teachers, assignments, grades and extracurricular activities. While you should be doing this regardless of your relationship status, it is especially important to be in the know when you have a pending family law case.

Joint legal custody allows parties to share in the educational decisions for the minor children, and requires them to agree on what school the kids attend and programs they participate in. Even if you don’t have joint legal custody, MCL 722.30 provides for the noncustodial parent to have access to educational records so he or she can maintain involvement, unless the parent is prohibited due to a protective order. 

Keeping up to date on your child’s education is important for several reasons. The first is obvious – you need to ensure your kids are being provided a good education that meets them at their unique level of development, so they can become thriving members of society. While I don’t know any parents that love parent-teacher conferences, consistent involvement with your child’s educator helps address learning or behavioral issues that may be happening. The last thing you want in court is to hear allegations of issues at school, and you know nothing about them.

Second, your involvement in their homework, conferences and grades paints a picture of who you are as a parent and helps the court determine whether joint legal custody is appropriate. In fact, one of the best interests factors codified in MCL 722.23, involves the child’s school and community history.

Third, knowing your child’s school schedule and breaks are crucial in creating a successful parenting time schedule. Each year students have multiple records days, professional development and other random days off, and you can request that those be assigned to you for additional parenting time or you can divide them between you and the other party. Most holiday breaks include several days before and after the actual holiday which can be shared between the parties. For parents who live out of state or a significant distance from the children’s primary residence, these extra days can provide opportunities for increasing parenting time. It’s also an opportunity to extend weekend time as these extra days off often fall on a Friday or Monday.

Last, the more involved you are in any aspect of your children’s lives shows that you are trying to co-parent. Maybe you and the other party can trade off conferences and party signups, or better yet, attend them together. Showing your children that their parents are a united front will set them up for success.

Not my circus, not my monkeys

At a time when courts are hearing a variety of issues many feel they have no business in, Michigan’s Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding seven chimpanzees housed in an Upper Peninsula Zoo. The animal welfare organization Nonhuman Rights Project filed a habeas corpus petition in 2023 on behalf of seven chimpanzees being held “prisoner” at the DeYoung Family Zoo, which it characterizes as a private roadside facility. The lawsuit requested the animals be released to a sanctuary due to concerns surrounding their living conditions. Allegations included the animals being held on fixed leashes, separating offspring, isolating chimps, and housing all chimps indoors the entire winter.

The organization wasn’t bold enough to argue that chimpanzees are human, but claimed they possess a “common law right to bodily liberty,” and their captivity at the DeYoung Zoo denied them that right. The Menominee Circuit Court declined to find that chimpanzees were “persons,” which made them illegible for habeas relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeals spent considerable time detailing the history of the writ of habeas corpus and emphasized the law and cases which referred to the captive as a “person.” The crux of this case was whether chimpanzees could be considered persons.

While human beings are considered “natural” persons, societal constructions have led to the creation of artificial persons, like corporations. Animals have long been considered property, and the Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the argument that they could be viewed as persons or that an exception should be made for “intelligent” wild animals. Nonhuman Rights Project then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which denied the application for leave to appeal.

Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote a lengthy dissent as she questioned whether “habeas relief should evolve in light of our more advanced understanding of the animal kingdom.” She noted that the legislature could reconsider animal welfare laws, including those related to chimpanzee confinement, as there is considerable evidence that they “think, feel, love, grieve, and yearn.” History has certainly shown us that laws once thought necessary have later been found oppressive. Unfortunately for the chimpanzees in this case, the Supreme Court followed the position of “not my circus, not my monkeys.”

Specificity is crucial when objecting

Many family law cases are referred to the Friend of the Court (FOC) Attorney Referee for hearings on contested issues like custody, parenting time, child support, pre-judgment spousal support and a variety of other legal matters. If the parties do not agree with the Referee’s recommendation, they can file an objection within 21 days after the recommendation has been served. It’s important to know that the 21 days start from the date the FOC Referee mailed or otherwise served the recommendation, not from the date the recommendation is received. Referee hearings are often viewed as mini trials, as the court can choose to simply review the hearing if both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their case.

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.215(E) outlines the post-hearing procedures for Referee hearings. One of the most important parts of this court rule is contained in section E(4) – the objection “must include a clear and concise statement of the specific findings or application of law to which an objection is made. Objections regarding the accuracy or completeness of the recommendation must state with specificity the inaccuracy or omission.” You would not believe (or maybe you would) the amount of objections received that simply state, “I object to the recommended order,” or “I do not agree,” and provide little to no other reasoning. While the court has many powers, being a mind reader isn’t one of them.

If there is an attorney on the other side of the case, I can assure you that failing to follow the court rule will be brought up in the response to the objection, as it should be. Courts can afford more leniency when an individual represents himself, especially since the advent of Canon 3(a)(4) in the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, but this doesn’t mean the court rule can be ignored. 

Assuming the objections were properly set before the court for a hearing, and proof of service is in the file, the court may allow the objecting party to flush out the issues with the recommendation on the record at the hearing. Additional details help the court determine if an actual objection exists, or if the person simply doesn’t like the result and just wants to take  his ball and go home.

I’m not suggesting that you should write a 50 page objection or attach documents dating back to the beginning of time, but you need to be thorough and specific when objecting to a recommendation. This will allow you the best opportunity to have the matter reviewed and hopefully receive a more accurate and favorable outcome.

New speed limit hopes to turn heads

Every now and then you hear about an old law still in the books that isn’t enforced because it takes more effort to legally repeal the law than it does to simply ignore it. For example, MCL 750.32 prohibits cohabitation by divorced parties, and should they dare to defy the law, they “shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.” Don’t forget that adultery is still a felony in Michigan, despite not being enforced.

Occasionally, new restrictions come out that pique our curiosity. Outagamie County Recycling and Solid Waste, located in Wisconsin, decided to change things up with a new speed limit – 17.3 mph. We are all used to changes in speed limits, especially around schools, construction zones, and sharp curves. But an oddly specific restriction of 17.3 mph has turned a lot of heads – which is exactly the intent.

When we drive past the same signs, buildings and locations every day, we tend to ignore little details because our brain switches to autopilot, taking in familiar sites without registering what they mean anymore. A speed limit of 17 mph is likely to catch your eye, and then tack on 0.3? It’s likely you will snap out of your fog and notice the sign instantly. 

The road is mostly traversed by residents, haulers and contractors, but because it is contained within a county-operated recycling facility, it can post its own rules. Less public roads are not heavily monitored by law enforcement, which can lead to individuals ignoring the speed limit. When large work vehicles take up the lion’s share of a roadway, distracted driving and speeding become more dangerous. 

Hopefully the new speed limit will help combat unsafe driving in Outagamie County, causing drivers look twice on their commute.

There's always an alternative

Once a lawsuit is filed, the defendant must be served with the summons and complaint so he or she can prepare a defense and respond appropriately. In addition, both sides have an obligation to serve the other with pleadings filed throughout the life of the case. In family law cases, most parties know the contact information for their likely now insignificant other – addresses, phone numbers, emails and usually a sprinkling of family members’ contact information too.

Occasionally the other side may be a real Houdini and disappear, making it difficult to serve the required pleadings and provide notice. Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 2.105, 2.106 and 2.107 provide information and options for serving a dodgy defendant or private plaintiff. Like most things in law, you need permission before you can serve someone by alternate means.

You can use SCAO form MC 303 to explain why you can’t effect service the ordinary way of personal service or mail. Your motion should tell the court what you have done to ascertain the opposing party’s current contact information, including verification by a process server if applicable. If the court believes you’ve made a real effort to locate and serve the other side without success, request for alternate service may be granted.

Alternate service can include tacking paperwork to a door, delivering at a specific address where it is believed a member of the household is old enough to accept the process, email, messaging apps, and publication in a paper, usually one that is local to the area the opposing party last lived, and for multiple weeks in a row. Posting the order at the courthouse and two or more public places may also be required. The nitty gritty of what’s required for alternate service is spelled out in the MCR, and ultimately the court will set forth the requirements for your case.  You are still required to provide proof of service for the court file to verify that the alternate service was executed.

Alternate service is not perfect, and it is likely that the opposing party may not see the paperwork because they aren’t looking for it, fail to check messages regularly or don’t frequent the location where the posting is placed. Like much else in the legal system, you can only do so much when your options are limited.  If the other side decides to play hide and seek, look for alternative relief in the court rules.

Disney Lawsuit Dismissed

Walt Disney World is known as the “most magical place on earth,” with its brand having infiltrated almost every market you can think of. Its parks, characters and ability to seamlessly blend fantasy and reality draws millions each year to experience the pixie dust.

 For Emma McGuiness, her 2019 Disney experience was anything but happy. In addition to its famous four parks in Florida, Disney World boasts separate water parks, one of which is Typhoon Lagoon. Typhoon Lagoon has various rides to choose from, and Emma decided to ride the Humunga Kowabunga, which offers a 214 foot downhill sliding experience in the dark, with top speeds up to 40 mph.

Sounds fun, right? Unfortunately, the abrupt stop at the end of the slide caused Emma to experience the not so fun phenomenon of a “wedgie.” Emma’s situation turned serious when she suffered immense pain, bleeding and lacerations that damaged internal organs. Like any good American, Emma filed a lawsuit against Disney in 2023, alleging a minimum of $50,000 in damages.

Riders of the Humunga Kowabunga were advised to cross their legs at their ankles, which Emma did, but the force of the ride caused her ankles to become uncrossed. She alleged that no reason was given as to why crossing your legs was a good idea. Two others had experienced similar injuries in 2017, but thousands have enjoyed the slide without incident. Disney denied any wrongdoing and suggested that Emma did not use reasonable care and willingly got on the attraction. Interestingly, the ride closed January 20, 2026, for refurbishment.

The July 2025 mediation with Disney was unsuccessful, so the case was set for trial on January 5, 2026. Surprisingly, Emma dismissed her lawsuit in August 2025, and even more shocking, the voluntary dismissal was with prejudice, barring her from filing the same complaint again.

This unexpected turn of events begs the question, why did Emma dismiss the lawsuit? Did Scrooge McDuck finally open his pockets to reach a settlement? No evidence of that happening has surfaced – maybe the Disney magic really does exist.

Financial disclosures required at outset of divorce

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.206 provides requirements for starting a domestic relations case, including the basics of what needs to be in the complaint, requesting spousal support, and providing a Verified Financial Information Form (VFIF). See MCR 3.206(C)(2).

The VFIF became required in divorce, separate maintenance and annulment cases in 2020, and is a sworn document created by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO), form CC320. It requires parties to disclose personal information such as benefits from their employer, sources of income, real estate, financial accounts, retirement benefits, property, debts and more. Parties have 28 days after the defendant first responds to the complaint to serve the completed form on each other.

 

If parties agree (in writing, of course) to waive exchange of the form, or if they have an executed consent judgment, final order or settlement agreement when the case is filed, the VFIF is no longer required. For those impacted by domestic violence or assault, certain identifying information can be left out of the completed form, but you will be required to explain to the court why information was omitted.

 

Discovery is an integral part of litigating and finalizing the case – it’s rare that both parties know all the little details about their assets and debts. By requiring the VFIF to be exchanged at the outset of the case, both sides get a jump start on what needs to be explored deeper. Discovery can be extremely time consuming and costly for both sides, especially when one party has taken primary responsibility for paying bills, investing money or otherwise assumed financial control over the estate (whether agreed upon or not). The other side may be left in the dark, requiring more aggressive discovery tactics, more subpoenas, more interrogatories, more depositions. The VFIF helps reduce the amount of time and money needed to give both parties a full picture of the marital estate and resolve the matter.

 

Transparency is crucial to the court process, no matter what case is being heard. While some argue that transparency doesn’t exist within the judicial system, the VFIF attempts to combat that belief, setting the tone that full disclosure is not voluntary, but mandatory.

Help finding legal forms you need

Ending things with your better (or worse) half requires a lot more effort than beginning the relationship. Once you decide to divorce or separate, the paperwork pile turns into a mountain. One of the first hurdles self-represented individuals face is simply trying to find the forms and documents that must be completed and filed. Without those, pleading your court case is very difficult.

Luckily, there are several options to explore, whether you are representing yourself or have an attorney. The State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) has a plethora of forms online and available for free at https://www.courts.michigan.gov/SCAO-forms/. These forms are regularly updated so it’s best to check that your form is the most recent version. SCAO has forms for a multitude of legal areas, not just family law, and are used frequently by the court and litigants.

 

Another popular option is Michigan Legal Help’s website, https://michiganlegalhelp.org, which provides step-by-step instructions on a variety of legal issues, including family law, criminal, employment, housing and others. In addition to forms, Michigan Legal Help has articles and helpful links to clinics and other resources. You can fill out and print a “do it yourself” divorce by simply answering the questions and inputting your data. By using this tool, you’re not just handed a blank judgment and instead the site prints a completed document based on your information. While the forms are free, you can make an optional donation.

 

Some courts provide DIY divorce kits with the forms necessary to handle your divorce start to finish but the cost for these kits vary and not all counties provide them. The Legal Resource Center, or LRC, run by Eastern Michigan University’s paralegal program, operates out of the Washtenaw County courthouse and provides assistance in the areas of probate and family law, housing disputes and small claims issues. While the LRC can’t provide legal advice, it provides help with accessing and completing forms. As it is run in conjunction with the university, be sure to check the hours of operation as it follows the academic calendar. There may also be a cost related to printing fees.

 

The Friend of the Court (FOC) carries a variety of free forms as it relates to family law cases. Some are available on your county’s FOC website, or you can request that they be mailed or emailed to you.

 

While this article is not exhaustive of the resources available to litigants and attorneys, it’s a solid start to pleading your case.

Proposed PPO law aids with service issues

When a personal protection order (PPO) is granted in Michigan, it is supposed to give the petitioner assurance that the perpetrator will abide by the court order restricting contact with the petitioner. Once the PPO is granted, it must be served upon the respondent so he or she knows that the PPO exists and what the restrictions are.

However, police officers charge a service fee and mileage to serve the respondent with the PPO, and private process servers can cost considerably more. The exact cost can vary depending on which department provides the service, and coming up with the money can be difficult for the petitioner, ultimately delaying service. Most PPOs involve some form of domestic violence, a significantly underreported crime. Forms of control from the perpetrator include financial, leaving the victim little to no access to money.

 

Michigan Senate Bills 611 and 612 have been approved by the Senate and would provide service of the PPO within 72 hours at no charge to the petitioner. The PPO would designate a law enforcement agency located within the respondent’s jurisdiction as responsible for serving the order on the respondent. However, the petitioner could use another police agency or competent adult (not a party) to serve the respondent, if desired. The costs associated with law enforcement serving the PPO would come from the Personal Protection Order Service Fund, which has already secured $1 million as part of the 2026 state budget.

 

The tragic death of Latricia Green, who was killed in August 2025 by her ex-husband, stresses the importance of this legislation. While she had a PPO against him, it had not been served at the time of her death. Forty-three states already provide free service of PPOs, leaving Michigan in a very small minority.  This legislation recognizes that money should not dictate a person’s safety.

Judicial Protection Act will provide more safeguards for judges

Judges have incredibly demanding jobs, even if they did ask for the job by running for election or appointment. That difficulty is compounded by safety concerns for the bench and their families. Local courthouses prepare as best they can with extra security for high-profile cases, potentially dangerous individuals appearing in person, and if necessary, escorts to and from work and home. 

Michigan’s Senate Bill 82 (2025), or the “Judicial Protection Act,” aims to mitigate some of the safety concerns by limiting public disclosure of personal information about judges and their family. Immediate family members are those who share a permanent residence with the judge, including spouses, children, parents and any other familial relative of the judge. 

Personal identifying information, or PII, has a lengthy list of what is included: birth date, permanent residence address (except for city and township), address of other property regularly used as a dwelling, phone numbers, driver’s license or state ID number, Social Security number, personal email, tax IDs, credit, debit card and bank account information, license plate or other unique identifier of a vehicle, school or daycare information, including schedules and routes taken to and from the location, and employment location other than the court house.

Judges can submit a request in writing to remove a public posting or PII displayed about the judge or her immediate family. The request to remove the details would remain in effect until the judge provides a written request to lift or modify the original ask. Once the request has been made, any current public displays of this information are to be removed no later than five business days after the request was received. If compliance is not had, the judge or her family member can commence a civil action to compel the compliance. 

Any PII on the written request is also exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Public availability of the PII elsewhere is not a defense to violating the terms of the Judicial Protection Act.

Exceptions to the proposed act include if the information is relevant and contained within a news report, editorial or other speech “on a matter of public concern;” if the PII is needed to effectuate the judge’s request, voluntary disclosure, internal use for businesses, health and safety purposes, credit reporting, and the list goes on (really, it does – it spans from subsection a through o). 

Given past violence directed at judges and their families, this act is long overdue. The Judicial Protection Act will allow members of the bench to better perform their duties knowing there is an extra layer of safety around those they love.

Beware of inconsistencies in orders

When you’re going through a divorce or custody battle, you want to ensure that everything is buttoned up and clearly worded with no inconsistencies. This can prove difficult when you have to draft the many documents required – mandated forms, settlement agreements, support calculations, and of course the judgment itself. Don’t forget the notice of hearing, proofs of service and throw in a Friend of the Court approval to boot.

So what happens if something written in one document doesn’t match what is provided for in another? If it concerns support, Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.211 has the answer for you. In a divorce with minor children, child support must be addressed, even if the monthly support amount is zero. The State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) mandates the use of Uniform Support Orders (USOs), which are broken down into two types: Uniform Child Support Orders, or UCSOs, for child support, and Uniform Spousal Support Orders (USSOs) if spousal support is ordered. Both documents must tag along and be entered with the judgment or order.

You would think a quick copy and paste would eliminate any inconsistencies between the order and USO, right? Wrong. The USOs are forms which are vastly different from judgments, with fun boxes to check and grids to fill in carefully with the correct numbers from support guideline printouts. If you mix up the parties or confuse the variety of terms used (plaintiff, defendant, payer, support recipient), things can go downhill quickly.

MCR 3.211 provides that the “Uniform Support Order shall govern if the terms of the judgment or order conflict with the Uniform Support Order.” That means that what is written on the entered USO trumps. If your judgment says dad pays mom $500 a month in child support, but you reverse the names in the UCSO boxes and list mom as the payer and dad as the payee, mom’s paycheck is going to be missing $500 per month, which can have significant financial impact until it is corrected.

When it comes to spousal support, one important detail to ensure is correct on all documents is modifiability. If the judgment provides for spousal support to be non-modifiable and terminate after 5 years, but that is not mentioned on the USSO, nor does it incorporate/merge the judgment’s terms, guess what – spousal support is modifiable because the USO trumps.

USOs are updated on a fairly regular basis, and the court will only accept the most updated forms for entry, so if you haven’t done a divorce in a while, be certain to check that you are using the current form and that the terms of the order and USO match. When it comes to entered orders, you don’t want to hear the court start singing, “one of these things is not like the other."

Providing a helping hand to litigants

If I had a dime for every occasion I’ve been asked to provide legal advice to litigants representing themselves (pro per or pro se), well you know how the saying goes. Judges face the same difficulty as most pro pers don’t have anywhere near the level of legal knowledge necessary to represent themselves effectively. A lack of understanding of the law, court rules and procedures often lead to frustration and resentment toward the judicial system.

Canon 3(A)(4) has been added to the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct to assist judges in ensuring pro pers are fairly heard in court. Effective September 1, 2025, Canon 3(A)(4) provides that “judges may make reasonable efforts that help self-represented litigants to understand the proceedings and applicable procedural requirements, secure legal assistance, and be heard according to law.” Judges must be careful to not appear biased or provide one side with an unfair advantage, as many self-represented litigants already have a jaded opinion about the court (especially in family law cases).

 

The new Canon provides examples of what “reasonable efforts” may include and makes clear that the list is not exhaustive. The court can explain the proceedings, ask neutral questions to gather or clarify information, alter the usual way evidence is taken and “[c]onstrue pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised.” Judges are also able to detail next steps in the case and what parties are expected to do, as well as refer them to resources that could help them prepare, enforce or comply with orders.

 

Many judges already hold more relaxed proceedings to accommodate pro pers, and courthouses have information and forms readily available for those navigating without an attorney. That being said, some judges may not feel comfortable doing so, which is why this new Canon is so important. Giving judges permission to recognize and help mitigate the difficulty many have in self-representation will hopefully pave the way for a more amicable relationship between parties and courts.

Intentional community testing discrimination laws

Just when you thought things couldn’t get crazier, Arkansas enters the picture. A 160-acre community in the rural and remote Ozarks – named “Return to the Land” or RTTL – is opening its doors to residents, if they meet the specific criteria of being straight, white and non-Jewish. 

Cofounders Eric Orwoll and Peter Csere purchased the property in 2023, and members can buy shares that provide them with acres of land in the community. RTTL is trying to circumvent anti-discrimination laws by labeling itself a private membership association, albeit a bigoted one. RTTL’s website states that its membership is for “individuals and families with traditional views and common continental ancestry,” and the return to the land is to “separate ourselves from a failing modern society.”

Is the group taking advantage of the DEI rollback to see how far they can stretch exemptions to the Fair Housing Act and anti-discrimination laws? Probably. The legal disclaimer on the website specifically states that RTTL does not engage in real estate sales or rentals, and six communities are currently listed as either formed or in the planning stages of development. Orwoll says that RTTL’s purpose is to control who their neighbors are, and preserve white, American culture. In his opinion, America was white when his ancestors arrived, and members don’t want their white identity taken away. I’m guessing he didn’t learn about Native Americans and indigenous people in school.

Watching online interviews of members was mind boggling, with one stating that he didn’t know if the term racism applied to him, but he didn’t care. Others see RTTL as a loving movement, justifying their behavior by saying other ethnic groups can choose to do the same. In their view, exclusion brings purity, which could explain the monies paid out to members who have newborns. You don’t have to live on the compound to be a member, which helps with the group’s expansion efforts.

I am anxiously awaiting the first legal challenge to RTTL as nothing has surfaced yet, and how high it will climb in the legal system. Arkansas’ Attorney General recently claimed that he didn’t believe it violated any state or federal laws, which only bolsters the members’ belief that their behavior is acceptable. It’s unlikely that we will ever see any “hate has no home here” signs in the RTTL community. 

School's almost in session

Is anyone else surprised that school supplies start finding their way into stores earlier and earlier each summer? It’s downright depressing when we still have plenty of sunny days and swimming to do before the bell rings. Issues revolving around education can bring conflict and stress to co-parents who must navigate teachers, homework, grades and extracurriculars. 

If parties share joint legal custody of their kiddos, they have an equal say in medical decisions, education (including where they attend school or childcare) and what extracurricular activities they participate in. If parents can’t agree, a motion needs to be filed for the court to decide the issue, preferably well in advance of the new school year. Unless an order prohibits it, both parents can attend games, go to parent-teacher conferences and participate in all the fun homework assignments we find out about at 7 pm the night before they are due.

In cases where one parent is awarded sole legal custody, the decision making is left to that parent alone. If the other party doesn’t agree to that school or activity, they are stuck with it until and unless the court modifies the legal custody award to joint. The parent without legal custody may be concerned about the right to obtain information about the child’s education or health care decisions. Michigan law directly addresses this in MCL 722.30:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a parent shall not be denied access to records or information concerning his or her child because the parent is not the child's custodial parent, unless the parent is prohibited from having access to the records or information by a protective order. As used in this section, "records or information" includes, but is not limited to, medical, dental, and school records, day care provider's records, and notification of meetings regarding the child's education.

This law helps eliminate conflict between parents who lack effective communication skills, as it allows both parties to obtain records and information without having to ask the other parent. A parent without joint legal custody can still receive current information on how the kids are doing and address it with the other parent or the court if necessary. This is an important and necessary law as it emphasizes the importance of both parents being involved in the children’s lives and information being shared with both parents. 

As the law states, it does have exceptions for those with protective orders prohibiting information from being released. Personal protection orders can include this prohibition if the court believes the safety of the petitioner and/or child could be at risk.

Regardless of the custody award, it’s important for every parent to be aware they have a legal right to learn how their child is doing physically and educationally – after all, knowledge is power.

Big changes to Ex Parte motion practice

Starting September 1, 2025, filing an ex parte motion is about to become more complex. Motions filed ex parte, which is Latin for “by or for one party,” are based on one party’s belief that the matter is so urgent and important, that the other side should not be afforded notice. MCR 3.207 states that the court needs to be satisfied by the facts in the motion that “irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result from the delay required to effect notice, or that notice itself will precipitate adverse action before an order can be issued.”

Ex parte motions have to be verified or have an affidavit attached regarding the truth of the statements contained therein. Beyond that, not a lot is required procedurally to file the motion, as the seriousness of the facts really dictate the outcome. That is all about to change this September, as the ex parte court rule is getting a major overhaul.

 

If the case has minor children involved, ex parte motions will have to set forth whether child has an established custodial environment (ECE), and if so, with who. Per MCL 722.27, the custodial environment “is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.”  The motion also has to state whether or not entry of the requested order will change the ECE, or clear and convincing evidence exists that changing the ECE is in the child’s best interest. If a third party is requesting the ex parte order, he or she must also show the change is in the best interest of the child, by clear and convincing evidence.

 

Additionally, the court cannot enter an order that could modify the ECE without having an evidentiary hearing within 21 days after the ex parte order is entered. The order must include the notice of the hearing also, and the order has to be served on the Friend of the Court and opposing party within three days of its issuance. Ex parte orders must include specific language that provides parties with information as to what needs to be done if they want to object to the order, and when it may become a temporary order. The revised court rule also makes multiple changes to mandatory order language, as well as what must be done after service of the order. Be sure to check those out as this article addresses the modifications impacting how to file and what the court must do to enter an ex parte order.

 

And as a side note… ex parte is pronounced eks-PAR-tay, not ex party. Because nobody wants to party with their ex.

If you want to be heard, you must serve

Court motion dockets are held daily, usually grouped by subject matter, giving litigants the opportunity to have their issues heard. Due to my background, my largest involvement surrounds the domestic or family law docket. When the court is hearing the motions, I hold what I call my “disappointment docket,” where I have the unfortunate job of telling individuals that their motion likely won’t be heard that day due to failing to serve the opposing party or attorney.

While service times can vary, I’m focusing on Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.119. Pursuant to that rule, service of the written motion, notice of hearing and any briefs, etc. must be served upon the opposing side at least 9 days before the hearing if you are mailing it first-class, or at least 7 days before the hearing if you serve the other side personally. Personal service is exactly what it sounds like – physically delivering the documents, but also includes electronic service pursuant to MCR 1.109. Parties can also agree to allow service by email.

The key is to ensure you file a proof of service or certificate of mailing with the court, indicating how and when you served the other side. Without that, we don’t have any clue if and when service occurred and the motion can’t be heard if service was not properly effectuated. Many SCAO motion forms have a section for the movant to sign and date that the pleadings were served; however, many people fail to fill this out. It’s also common to have a proof of service for the motion but not the notice of hearing, and both are required.

No proof of service, or service not filed under the timelines required, win you a spot on my disappointment docket where I will inform you of the deficiency. At times, the other side appears and was actually served despite no proof of service being filed. If everyone appears for the hearing, there is the option to go forward with the motion that day and waive the service issue. Other cases result in adjournments, giving the movant time to get it right.

To have a seamless transition from filing your motion to having it heard in the courtroom, ensure that you follow the court rules to avoid the disappointment of possibly ending up on my docket.

AI usage in the legal field

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has infiltrated almost every nook and cranny in modern life. Most people have used AI to find out the weather, send a text or add something to their virtual cart. A simple “hey Siri,” or “Alexa,” fires up your virtual assistant, who can even tell you a good joke if you need a laugh. AI is increasingly used in the legal field as well.

In March 2025, a New York appeals court allowed plaintiff Jerome Dewald to provide his argument via video. When the video started to play, judges were shocked to have the argument presented by an avatar created by Dewald. The judge shut down the video but allowed him to continue to argue his case.

Dewald apologized to the court and explained that he thought the virtual character would do a better job presenting his position – after all, the avatar isn’t going to be nervous or intimidated by the legal process. In my opinion, I don’t think licensed attorneys should be allowed to substitute AI for themselves in court, but self-represented individuals are often afforded more leniency. Arguments for an artificial advocate could be made, especially if the litigant has a disability or learning disorder. The litigant should still be present to answer any questions or be cross-examined, and there’s always the risk that technology could glitch (think about how many times we’ve told people they are frozen when Zooming).

Interestingly, Arizona’s Supreme Court created AI Reporters Daniel and Victoria to deliver information about every ruling. Videos online have the pleasant and well-spoken avatars explaining the reasoning – the court wants to ensure timely access to accurate court decisions and have them presented in an understandable way. It only takes 30 minutes to generate the AI videos, which are written by court employees, significantly shortening the amount of time to “get the news out.”

AI certainly has its downfall – lawyers have been fined for using it to create legal arguments that turned out to be supported by non-existent law, or “AI hallucinations.” Short cuts are not always the best route and fact checking should be a must for anyone using AI in court. After all, you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet.

Spill lands Starbucks in hot water

For those of us old enough, we remember the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit brought by Stella Liebeck in the 90s. Stella suffered third-degree burns on 16% of her body when the scorching liquid spilled on her legs and groin area, ultimately resulting in a jury trial when the two couldn’t reach an initial settlement. The judge reduced punitive damages from $2.7 million to $480,000, and the $200,000 compensatory damages were slashed to $160,000. Stella and McDonald’s eventually reached a private settlement.

Stella’s lawsuit became big news and was considered by many to be a frivolous money grab despite her serious injuries and treatment. Like a blast from the past, a jury just told Starbucks to cough up $50 million after Postmates driver Michael Garcia received third-degree burns to his groin and thighs while picking up hot tea in 2020. Michael had multiple skin grafts and claimed he suffers from pain with friction to the burned area.

For all you lookie-loos out there, you can watch the video of the incident from a camera directed at the Los Angeles’ Starbucks’ drive through window and see the extreme reaction after Michael is handed the drinks and the cup falls. The crux of Michael’s argument was that the employee neglected to secure the tea in the drink carrier.

As one would expect, Starbucks is appealing the massive jury award, stating that while it has sympathy for Michael, the beverage giant is not to blame. I’d be surprised if they don’t reach a settlement to avoid the continuous legal battle and potential bad press. However, companies should be reminded that in instances like these, it’s not just the customer who lands in hot water.

New year, new child support formula manual

New year, new you, new child support formula manual. Unlike your new year’s resolutions, the 2025 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) manual must be adhered to for the next four years until another version is ushered in.

Nothing earth shattering has been changed in the 2025 version, although several things are worth mentioning. The annual ordinary medical amount that the payee of support must pay first before unreimbursed health care costs for the children are divided between the parties has actually been reduced. Prior formulas only increased the minimum amount the payee had to spend before the percentage split kicked in. However, the 2025 MCSF lowered the amount from $454 per year per child to $200 per year per child.  The new manual emphasizes that the payer of support pre-pays his or her percentage as part of the monthly support amount – while this is not new, clarification is helpful.  Uninsured health care costs for the children incurred by both the recipient and payer of support are subject to division.

 

Day care costs also have a new expiration date. The prior formula provided that child care costs could be included until August 31^st following the child’s 12^th birthday. Now, child care continues until the last day of the month that the child is under the age of 13. Of course, a court can extend the child care expiration date should it be necessary to do so for that specific case and child.

 

If a parent is incurring costs associated with his or her incarceration or conviction, those recurring payments can be deducted when calculating child support. This does not apply if the crime was failure to support children, or committed against the children in the case (or their sibling), the other parent or custodian.

 

Along with a new formula comes updated SCAO forms – be sure to use the most recent Uniform Child Support Orders and Deviation Addendum when submitting your support orders to the court. The Friend of the Court approval process should catch if an old form has been used, but it’s always easier to have it right the first time.

 

Sticking with the 2025 MCSF manual is easy because you don’t have a choice – good luck with the rest of your resolutions.