HE HAS A FRIEND NAMED "HOSS"

WHAT COULD BE WORSE FOR MR. NODINE? DIVORCE SERVED, DRUG INDICTED , POLITICALLY IMPEACHED AND NAMED ONLY MURDER SUSPECT IN DEATH OF MISTRESS!...... BUT HE HAS A FRIEND NAMED “HOSS”!



Terry Bankert a Flint Divorce Lawyer , http://attorneybankert.com/ observes it was a bad day for Alabama Mobile County Commissioner Stephen Nodine . Most of us working stiffs think our world has ended and nobody has it worse than us when we are served divorce papers.

IF YOU THOUGHT THE DAY YOU WERE SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS WAS BAD ASK MR. NODINE



SERVED INDICTED IMPEACHED AND NAMED ONLY MURDER SUSPECT

On one Friday he was served divorce papers indicted Friday by a Mobile County Grand Jury on drug charges, impeached and named the only suspect in the murder of his mistress, Angel Downs[see-1]


MICHIGAN IS A NO FAULT DIVORCE STATE.Mrs. Nodine could divorce here without all the above drama.

To end a valid marriage, there must be a judgment of divorce. In a divorce complaint, the only allegation of the grounds for divorce the statute permits is the no-fault ground, i.e., “there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.” MCL 552.6(1). [3]

If the statutory standard is met, the court must enter a judgment of divorce; thus, one party will invariably be able to obtain the divorce even if the other party objects. Grotelueschen v Grotelueschen, 113 Mich App 395, 318 NW2d 227 (1982) (if either party is unwilling to live with the other, the objects of matrimony have been destroyed); Kretzschmar v Kretzschmar, 48 Mich App 279, 210 NW2d 352 (1973) (one party’s assertion of the mere possibility that the marriage can be preserved is not sufficient grounds to deny the divorce). [3]

WIFE THINKS THERE MAY BE IRRECONCILEABLE DIFFERENCES

In the divorce papers filed Friday, Kimberlee Nodine cites an "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" and says any attempts to reconcile would be futile.[1] .....Do ya think!


WHAT WILL SHE GET WHEN HES IN JAIL?

She's seeking custody of their son, $971 per month in child support and $2,500 per month in alimony. Mrs. Nodine also wants to keep the couples house and her 2005 Honda Pilot, but wants Steve to pay the mortgage and car payment. She also wants Steve's pension from Mobile County.[1]

CHILD CUSTODY IN MICHIGAN

A court cannot enter a new custody order or amend an existing order without first determining if there is an established custodial environment. MCL 722.27(1)(c). Whether an established custodial environment exists is a preliminary and essential determination. Ireland v Smith, 214 Mich App 235, 542 NW2d 344 (1995), aff’d, 451 Mich 457, 547 NW2d 686 (1996). The trial court must make clear findings on this issue before deciding custody. Stringer v Vincent, 161 Mich App 429, 411 NW2d 474 (1987). This includes a request for sole custody when the initial order was for joint custody. See Duperon v Duperon, 175 Mich App 77, 437 NW2d 318 (1989); Nielsen v Nielsen, 163 Mich App 430, 415 NW2d 6 (1987). [3]

Once the trial court makes findings on the record on whether an established custodial environment exists and determines the appropriate burden of proof, it must then apply that burden to the best interests factors. Underwood v Underwood, 163 Mich App 383, 414 NW2d 171 (1987). [3]

The best interests of the child are the controlling consideration in custody disputes between parents, between agencies, and between third persons. MCL 722.27a. The best interests factors are set forth at MCL 722.23 (see §3.8). Before granting primary physical custody to a party in a custody determination, the trial court must consider each of the statutory factors and make specific findings on the record. Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 512 NW2d 851 (1994); Schubring v Schubring, 190 Mich App 468, 476 NW2d 434 (1991); Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 395 NW2d 65 (1986). [3]

The best interests of the child means the sum total of the following 12 factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:

(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.

(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.

(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. MCL 722.23


CHILD SUPPORT IN MICHIGAN. Here Ms. Nodine would be entitled to childsupport. Collecting may be an issue.


Under the SPTEA, support means the court-ordered payment of money for a child, including payment of the medical, dental, and other health care expenses; child care expenses; and educational expenses. MCL 552.602(ee)(i). [3]

According to 2008 MCSF 3.04, every support order must set a family annual ordinary health care expense amount to cover uninsured costs, premiums, and copays for children. [3]

For purposes of setting the support obligation, it is presumed that a specified dollar amount per child per year ($345 in 2008 manual) will be spent on ordinary expenses. This annual amount is apportioned according to the parents’ income, and the payer’s share is paid as part of the regular support payment. The payee must incur this minimum threshold amount before seeking reimbursement for health care expenses from the payer. [3]

However, the payer may seek to have the payee pay his or her apportioned amount of any health care expenses, regardless of whether the threshold amount has been satisfied. Amounts may be added to compensate for other known or predictable expenses, such as orthodontia or special medical needs. Uninsured health care expenses that exceed the ordinary health care expense amount are extraordinary expenses, which are apportioned between the parents based on the medical percentages set in the support order. [3]


SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN MICHIGAN, if the following elements applied Mrs. Nodine would have this avaiable.

A spousal support award must be just and reasonable under the circumstances of the individual case. MCL 552.23; see Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184, 187, 503 NW2d 664 (1993). [3]


Relevant factors in determining whether spousal support should be awarded include the following:

the past relations and the conduct of the parties

the length of the marriage

the ability of the parties to work

the source of and amount of property awarded to the parties

the ages of the parties

the ability of the parties to pay spousal support

the present situation of the parties

the needs of the parties

the health of the parties

the prior standard of living of the parties

whether either party is responsible for the support of others

general principles of equity

Parrish v Parrish, 138 Mich App 546, 554, 361 NW2d 366 (1984).

The court must make findings on each factor that is relevant to the claim before it. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159, 485 NW2d 893 (1992). [3]

ALABAMA SHERIFF “HOSS” SPEAKS OUT

Baldwin County Sheriff Huey "Hoss" Mack said that while Nodine is the only suspect in the Downs [ THE GIRL FRIEND]case at present, that does not mean that there's enough evidence for an arrest. "Just because you're a suspect doesn't mean that you did it," Mack said. [2]


I AM MOST AMAZED THAT MOBILE ALABAMA COUNTY HAS A REAL SHERIFF CALLED “HOSS”!


Posted here by

Terry R. Bankert

http://attorneybankert.com/


[1]

http://www.wkrg.com/alabama/article/steve-nodines-wife-files-for-divorce/887557/May-17-2010_5-41-pm/

[2]

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/impeachment_trial_of_stephen_n.html

[3]

Michigan Family Law Bench Book

She must give back the engagement ring!

Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert received the following question from AVVO.
http://attorneybankert.com/




“My boyfriend gave me a promise ring on March 14th,2010 told me that the engagenent ring will come after. Now he wants the promise ring back, what are my rights and do i have yo give it back or was it a gift? He said I aint allowed to move any of me or my childs things out of here till i do. What do I do now?”



The ring is a conditional gift. It is not yours.



Some sources say you must give it back. “The engagement period is often a time of euphoria and bliss as two individuals build a relationship and contemplate one of the most important institutions in human society - marriage. ... A majority of jurisdictions, to include Michigan Meyer v. Mitnick, 244 Mich. App. 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001),
hold that where an engagement gift is given to a donee in contemplation of marriage, although absolute in form, it is conditional; the donor is entitled to return of the engagement gift upon breach of the engagement. ... Prior to the surge of modern "no-fault" divorce proceedings, a majority of jurisdictions held or recognized that where the donor breaks the engagement, the donee has the right to possess the engagement ring or to recover its value. ... The donor had filed a complaint in replevin alleging a conditional gift of a diamond engagement ring to the donee, where the donor had terminated the engagement one year later. ... While a majority of lower courts recognize that where the donor breaks the engagement, the donee has the right to possess the engagement ring, it is important to recognize that these decisions predate the courts' extension of the policy that removes fault-finding from the personal-relationship dynamics of marriage and divorce to encompass that of broken engagements. ... “