FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY,FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER POST ON PROPERTY SETTLEMENT, Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970

FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY,FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER POST ON PROPERTY SETTLEMENT, Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970



MOM GETS PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY?



The APPELLATE court held that the DIVORCE trial court did not err in its division of the parties' real and personal property and its award of primary physical custody of the parties' child to the plaintiff-wife.



Issues PRESENTED HERE:

A.Divorce;

B.The trial court's findings of fact; McDougal v. McDougal; Draggoo v. Draggoo; Holmes v. Holmes;

C.Binding effect of property settlements reached through negotiations and agreement by the parties; Keyser v. Keyser;

D.Abandoned issue; MCR 7.212(C)(7); McIntosh v. McIntosh; Custody; Berger v. Berger; Stipulation; Dick v. Dick

__________________________________________/

SOURCE Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ,Case Name: TXXXXX v. TXXXXX,e-Journal Number: 48366,Judge(s): Per Curiam – Gleicher, Whitbeck, and Owens UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2011, No. 296949,Allegan Circuit Court, LC No. 07-042486-DM.

__________________________________________/



HUSBAND TELLS THE COURT YHEY DID NOT DO IT RIGHT



The defendant-husband challenged the trial court's disposition of the parties' personal and real property, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to find and take into account when disposing of the martial property that plaintiff did not maintain the status quo and the trial court erred in giving plaintiff the property adjacent to the marital residence.

________________________________________/

This article posted by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970. Article has been modified and written in SEO format. Posters comments in CAP or cited [trb]. Questions contact http://www.attorneybankert.com/


________________________________________/



DIVIDED PROPERTY SHOULD BE EQUAL!

He also contended that the trial court's division of marital personal property was not equal, and the trial court's disposition of the parties' personal property was erroneous because plaintiff's personal property appraisal was improper.

IT WAS AN AGREEMENT?

However, the parties stipulated on the record that they had reached a settlement regarding the division of their real and personal property.

PARTIES EACH HAD DIVORCE ATTORNEYS

Defendant was represented by counsel and indicated that he understood and agreed to the settlement.

DIVORCE COURT JUDGE INCORPORATRED THEIR AGREEMENT?

The trial court's judgment of divorce was consistent with the parties' agreement. Defendant did not allege, and the record did not indicate, the presence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or severe stress.

YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!

He could not stipulate to the division of property and now argue to the court that the ensuing property disposition was erroneous.



THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAID



“A party may not take a position in the trial court and subsequently seek redress in an

appellate court that is based on a position contrary to that taken in the trial court.” Holmes v Holmes, 281 Mich App 575, 587-588; 760 NW2d 300 (2008). Moreover, “[a] party cannot stipulate a matter and then argue on appeal that the resultant action was error.” Id. at 588. “[C]ourts are bound by property settlements reached through negotiations and agreement by parties to a divorce action, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or severe stress which prevented a party from understanding in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act in which she was engaged.” Keyser v Keyser, 182 Mich App 268, 269-270; 451 NW2d 587 (1990). “This rule applies whether the settlement is in writing . . . or . . . orally placed on the record and consented to by the parties, even though not yet formally entered as part of the divorce judgment by the lower court.” Id. at 270.



HUSBAND LOSES ARGUMENT

Affirmed.

-----END

If you have questions about divorce please contact Terry R. Bankert http://www.attorneybankert.com/