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.