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."