One Court of Justice

On May 25, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal in People v Buie, No. 142698, and ordered the parties to brief issues involving witness trial testimony via two-way interactive video technology and its relationship to the Confrontation Clause and MCR 6.006(C).

On May 25, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal in Patterson v Nichols, Nos. 142438-9 and 142441, ordering that the cases be argued and submitted to the Court together.  The Court ordered the parties to brief issues regarding defendant’s conduct and the decedent’s death including issues involving duty, proximate cause, recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, good faith, and whether defendant was performing ministerial rather than discretionary acts.

The Court denied five applications for leave to appeal and one motion to partially confirm judgment.

The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that requiring a juvenile who was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) when he turned 18 years of age was not punishment.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s conclusion that the respondent’s registration under the SORA was unconstitutional because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  Judge Meter authored the majority opinion in In re TD, No. 294716, and Judge Krause concurred to urge the Legislature to consider giving trial courts the ability to exercise discretion to deregister people who can be shown to be non-dangerous. Read more »

In Ewald v. Ewald, No. 295161, the Court of Appeals held in a case of first impression that the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act does not permit the enforcement of parenting time rights by adjusting child supports obligations, even if a parent’s actions caused a child to refuse to visit the other parent.

The parties had two children when they divorced in 2009.  Before the plaintiff filed for divorce, the parties separated and the defendant moved into a nearby residence.  The parties’ son resided with the plaintiff, and the daughter lived with the defendant.  Soon after the separation, the son had a falling out with the plaintiff and stopped visiting her.  Although the plaintiff sought counseling to repair the relationship, she never sought a court order to enforce parenting time.  The trial court ultimately adopted the parties’ agreement regarding parenting time of their son, which provided that that it would be held in abeyance until the parties agreed otherwise or the court order a change.

Read more »

In Smith v. Smith, No. 295243, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision not to modify the parties’ property settlement agreement after the market value of the defendant’s IRA increased by nearly $1.4 million.

As part of their divorce, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (“PSA”).  While dividing the retirement accounts for the PSA, the value of the defendant’s IRA was calculated using a February 2009 statement.  However, the parties did not negotiate and sign the PSA until August of 2009.  In the interim, the value of the IRA had increased by approximately $1.4 million.  The plaintiff moved to include the increase in value of the IRA in the judgment of divorce.  The plaintiff also argued that the defendant was required to disclose the increase in value of the IRA under the judgment of divorce.  The circuit court concluded that the defendant was not required to disclose the increase in value because he provided the plaintiff with the February IRA statement and she could have calculated the increase in value on her own.  Additionally, the circuit court declined to revise the parties’ PSA because they had used fixed values when they originally divided the retirement accounts.  The plaintiff appealed.

Read more »

On May 26, 2011, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in Preston v. Department of Treasury, No. 295055.  The Court of Appeals held that the unitary-business principle applies to the Michigan Income Tax Act (“MITA”), affirming the Court of Claims.  Thus, under MITA, an individual taxpayer is entitled to apportion multistate income from a unitary business according to the statutory formula. Read more »

In United States v. Tinklenberg, Case No. 09-1498, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Speedy Trial Act (“STA”) does not require that the pretrial motion actually cause delay, or expectation of the delay, of trial.  Rather, pursuant to section 3161(h)(1)(D), the Speedy Trial clock is automatically stopped upon the filing of a pretrial motion until a hearing is held on the motion or the court otherwise disposes of the pending motion.  The Court did, however, uphold the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the district court improperly excluded holidays and weekends from calculating the excludable time under section 3161(h)(1)(F) of the STA.  This case arose out of a prosecution in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Read more »

On May 26, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to waive filing fees in Oatis v. Department of Corrections, No. 143012.

In Charter Township of Lyon v McDonald’s USA, LLC, No. 294074, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment that compensated a commercial developer for its intangible property interest in an easement in one of its condominium units that was taken under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (“UCPA”).  Judge O’Connell authored the majority opinion, and Judge Beckering concurred in part. Read more »

On May 23, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership v Robert Naftaly, Case Nos. 140814, 140817-140823.  The Court concluded that the final sentence of MCL 211.34c(6), which prevents judicial review of a State Tax Commission (“STC”) decision, is unconstitutional.  Accordingly, the Court severed the sentence, left the remainder of MCL 211.34c(6) in full effect, and held that circuit courts have jurisdiction over these appeals. Read more »

On Thursday, May 19, 2011, in NDC of Sylvan, Ltd. v. Township of Sylvan, Nos. 301397, 301410, the Court of Appeals reversed a $2.4 million judgment against Sylvan Township and vacated a permanent injunction that barred the Township from collecting $3.8 million in special assessments from two plaintiff developers whose planned residential developments went south when the economy went sour.  Read more »