BANKRUPTCY EATON COUNTY, HOME FORCLOSURE, CAR REPOSSESSION AND LIEN, (810) 235-1970 ATTORNEY BANKRUPTCY QUESTIONS.

WHAT IS A LIEN IN BANKRUPTCY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HOME FORCLOSUE AND CAR REPOSSESSION? If you get bankruptcy protection will it end your obligations on your home and car? Cen they be repossesed or forclosed? Yes they can! *****EATON COUNTY BANKRUTPCY ATTORNEY or LAWYER 810-235-1970 , Terry Bankert, will answer EATON COUNTY Flint MI, Bay City, Owosso, Lapeer and Corunna questions from people in debt that just need some answers. The topics you can ask as as follows. Remember we know its http://www.nojokebeingbroke.com/ ***** You signed on a mortgage and car loan. When that occured 2 legal obligation occured. 1.You agred that if you default on your loan the car or home has to be given back. 2.You signed a promissory note for the amount of the loan on the home and a security agreement on the car. In bothcases a lien was created against your car or house that will survive bankruptcy. DOES BANKRUPTCY STOP FORCLOSURE? For more answers contcat Flint based Bankruptcy Lawyer terry Bankert at (810-235-1970 ot through www.attorneybankert.com or www.nojokebeingbroke.co

EATON COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY DECISION REVIEW BY FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT 235-1970

　
The Eaton County Divorce Court, Family Division, 1999 Child Custody dispute and order granting joint legal custody was done wrong because there was not a child custody change in circumstances determination hearing. Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, a subscriber to Dump My Spouse . Com, reviews this issue. If you need information on you child custody, child support or divorce call 1-810-235-1970 , Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert or see the link below.

The State of Michigan Court of Appeals in the case concerning FATHER JOHN E. WILBER,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- appellant and MOTHER Skye D. Carter Defendant /counter-Plaintiff-Appell in an UNPUBLISHED DECISION ,May 20, 2010,v No. 293804 DECIDED ON THE ORDERS OF A LOCAL COURT. The child custody case was from Eaton Circuit Court. That courts case number is LC No. 99-000882-DP. The information that follows is altered for this media presentation. The original case can be found at cite [1]

In this EATON COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY custody dispute, p FATHER plaintiff appeals an order granting joint legal custody of the parties’ minor child (DOB 4/20/99).

THE EATON COUNTY COURT WAS WRONG IN A CHILD CUSTODY DECISION

Because the trial court erred in awarding custody without determining a change in circumstances, just cause, the existence of an established custodial environment, and without considering the best interest factors, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

DUE PROCESS AND STATE LAW VIOLATED

FATHER Plaintiff argues that the court erred in modifying a prior custody award without a motion being submitted and without a finding that there was proper cause or a change in circumstances to justify the modification.

DOCTRINE FOLLOWED

A custody order must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s
findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of
discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue. MCL 722.28; Berger v Berger,
277 Mich App 700, 705; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). A trial court commits legal error when it
incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. Id. at 706.

THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT AND EATON COUNTY, THERE ARE RULES A JUDGE MUST FOLLOW.

The Child Custody Act of 1970 (CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq., governs child custody
disputes between parents, agencies, or third parties. The purpose of the CCA is to promote the
best interest of children, and it is to be liberally construed. MCL 722.26(1); Harvey v Harvey,
470 Mich 186, 192; 680 NW2d 835 (2004). The CCA creates “presumptions and standards by
which competing claims to the right of custody are to be judged, sets forth procedures to be
followed in litigation regarding such claims, and authorizes the forms of relief available in the
circuit court.”. Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565; 364 NW2d 665 (1984).

WHAT THE EATON COURT GAVE FATHER IT TOOK AWAY IN ERROR

FATHER Plaintiff states that the court changed custody because it issued an order on March 31,
2009, awarding plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the child and then, on August 11,
2009, ordered “[d]efendant’s joint legal custody of the minor child is restored. Hence both
parties shall now share joint custody of the minor child.”

FATHERS RIGHTS WERE TAKEN AWAY AT A REVIEW HEARING

The August 11, 2009, order followed a hearing that was scheduled in the order dated March 31, 2009, to review the matter.

THE EATON COUNTY COURT HAD MADE SEVERAL CHANGES TO CHILD LEGAL CUSTODY

Since the original February 2000 award of joint legal and physical custody, the court
changed the custody arrangement several times.

EATON COUNTY COURT ISSUED A TEMPORARY ORDER PENDING REVIEW

05/2005-temp physical to father
In May 2005, after motions from both parties, the court awarded temporary physical custody to plaintiff pending a referee hearing.

02/2006- next review hearing
After a referee hearing and a motion by defendant, the court ordered that the parties again have joint legal and physical custody, and set a review hearing for February 2006.

12/2006- led to motions and a referee hearing

Following motions by both parties and a referee hearing, the court awarded temporary physical custody to plaintiff and suspended defendant’s parenting time pending further orders and a referee hearing in December 2006.

02/2007 continued fathers custody mothers supervision

In February 2007, after a referee hearing, the court continued temporary physical custody
with plaintiff and supervised visits with defendant.

07/2008, mother gets parenting told to move

In July 2008, after defendant petitioned for parenting time and plaintiff sought child support, the court ordered parenting time for defendant and required defendant to secure different living conditions within four months.

03/31/2009, father granted father sole legal and physical

In a March 31 2009, order, after another motion by plaintiff to limit defendant’s parenting time and a scheduled review hearing at which the court interviewed the child, the court granted plaintiff sole legal and physical custody and scheduled the matter for review in August 2009.

08/11/2009 mothers joint legal custody restored, saying it intended too all along.

After the review hearing and a second interview with the child, the court ordered on August 11, 2009, that defendant’s joint legal custody was restored. The court also scheduled a hearing to review child support.

During the August 2009 review hearing, the court reviewed the history of the case and
indicated that the intent had long been to expand defendant’s involvement in the child’s life, but
that the real question was whether to reinstate the original joint physical custody arrangement of the parties.

EATON COUNTY COURT WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MOTHER BUT MOTHER WA BEGING TO ACT IN A STANDARD MANNER.

The court indicated that it was not entirely comfortable with defendant’s
involvement with the child in the past but that defendant began to resume more typical parenting time.

EATON COUNTY COURT SAID IT WAS CONSIDERING CHANGING CUSTODY BECAUSE FATHER WAS MAKING IT DIFFIUCULT FOR MOTHER?

The court indicated that it was likely to restore joint legal custody because plaintiff was
relying on sole legal custody in order to make things difficult for defendant.

DID EATONG COUNTY THINK IT WAS MANAGEING THIS CHILD CUSTODY ARRAINGEMENT?

Because the court issued temporary orders on May 25, 2005, and February 16, 2007,
scheduled hearings to review the matter, made comments regarding its general intention to
restore the original custody arrangement, and in its August 11, 2009, order referred to restoring
joint custody rather than awarding custody, it is possible that the court believed it was managing
the custody of the parties with temporary orders to preserve, and not modify, the original custody arrangement as intended.

WE WANT PARENTS TO FEEL FREE TO LET THE OTHER PARENT HAVE MORE TIME WHEN THEY ARE IN NEED.

Indeed, this Court has affirmed the “good public policy to encourage
parents to transfer custody of their children to others temporarily when they are in difficulty by
returning custody when they have solved their difficulty.” Straub v Straub, 209 Mich App 77,
81; 530 NW2d 125 (1995).

TOO MUCH SPECULATION

However, under these circumstances, any finding that the court was
modifying temporary orders until joint custody could be restored would be based on speculation.

SOME ORDERS WERE CALLED TEMPORARY SOME WERE NOT.

Only two of the court’s six orders changing the custody arrangement of the parties were
characterized as temporary. The August 11, 2009, order followed a March 31, 2009, order
granting sole legal and physical custody to plaintiff that did not state that it was a temporary
order.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

MCL 722.27(1) provides in part:
If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an
original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the
circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best interests of
the child the court may do 1 or more of the following:
* * *
(c) Modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or
because of change of circumstances until the child reaches 18 years of age and,
subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA
295, MCL 552.605b, until the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age. The
court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new
order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there
is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the
child.

EATON COUNTY CHANGES IN CHILD CUSTODY MUST BE BASED ON CAUSE OR CHANGE.

Thus, the party seeking a change of custody must first establish proper cause or change of
circumstances by a preponderance of evidence. In re AP, 283 Mich App 574, 600; 770 NW2d
403 (2009). If a party fails to establish proper cause or change of circumstances, the trial court
may not hold a child custody hearing. Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich App 599, 603-604; 766
NW2d 903 (2009).

EATON COUNTY FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THESE THRESHOLDS

Here, there was no discussion of the threshold question of proper cause or a change in
circumstances during the August 5, 2009, hearing or in the August 11, 2009, order to consider a
change in the March 31, 2009, custody order.

SOMETIMES JJUDGES FORGET THEY ARE THE REFEREES OF AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM BASED UPON MOTIONS AND RESPONSES

Neither party filed a motion to change custody following the March 31, 2009, order. A trial court must determine if the moving party has shown that the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have materially changed since the entry of the last custody order. Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339, 355-356; 770 NW2d 77 (2009).
　
Here there was no such motion and no findings presented on the matter.

THE EATON COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY JUDGE WAS SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE IF A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT EXISTED.

Additionally, the first step in considering a change in custody is to determine whether an
established custodial environment exists. It is only then that the court can determine what
burden of proof is applied. Curless v Curless, 137 Mich App 673, 676; 357 NW2d 923 (1984).1

THE EATON COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY JUDGE DID NOT LOOK AT THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST ON THE COURTS RECORD.

Further, above all, custody disputes are to be resolved in the best interests of the child, as
measured by the factors set forth in MCL 722.23. Eldred v Ziny, 246 Mich App 142, 150; 631
NW2d 748 (2001). Generally, the trial court must consider and explicitly state its findings and
conclusions regarding each factor and the failure to do so is reversible error. Rittershaus v
Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462, 475; 730 NW2d 262 (2007); Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App
1
HERE IS WHAT A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT IS.

According to MCL 722.27(1)(c), a custodial environment is established if: “over an appreciable
time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the
necessities of life, and parental comfort. The age of the child, the physical environment, and the
inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be
considered.” 726, 730; 418 NW2d 924 (1988).

ITS NOT A MIGHT DO IT’S A MUST DO RESPONSIBILITY.

Even in fairness to the parties this standard cannot be abrogated. Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 34; 553 NW2d 619 (1996).

THE EATON COUNTY JUDGE DID NOT DISCUSS THESE ISSUES

In the instant case, there was no discussion or findings regarding an established custodial
environment, the standard of proof required to change custody, or the statutory best interest
factors in the courts order or during the hearing.

THERE IS NOTHING NEW ABOUT THE COURT OF APPEALS EXPECTING THE EATON COUNTY JUDGE TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF CHILD CUSTODY.

This Court has consistently held that when deciding a custody matter the trial court must evaluate each of the factors contained in MCL 722.23 and state a conclusion on each, thereby determining the best interests of the child. Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich App 353, 363; 683 NW2d 250 (2004).

THESE LAWS PROTECT THE FIUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN AND ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED.

It is vitally important for the protection of the fundamental rights of the parties involved to have some indicia on the record showing that the court has satisfied itself that its custody determination was in the child’s best interests. In re AP, 283 Mich App at 608.

SOCIETY WANTS TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTIZE CHANGES IN A CHILD LIFE.

The goal of the CCA is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances. See Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 6; 634 NW2d 363 (2001).

SINCE THE EATON COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE A CHILD CUSTODY DECISION RIGHT IT MUST DO IT AGAIN.

When a trial court fails to consider custody issues in accordance with the mandates set
forth in MCL 722.23 and make reviewable findings of fact, the proper remedy is to remand for a
new child custody hearing. Foskett, 247 Mich App at 12. Also, where this Court concludes that
the trial court committed clear legal error on a major issue, the appropriate remedy is to remand
for reevaluation. Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 888-889; 526 NW2d 889 (1994);
Rittershaus, 273 Mich App at 475-476.

THE MICHIGAN STATE COURT OF APPEALS , We therefore reverse and remand. On remand, the EATON COUNTY trial court should consider up-to-date information, including the child’s current and reasonable preferences and any other changes in circumstances arising since the original custody order. Fletcher, 447 Mich at 889.

ORDER OF THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

FATHER MAY GET COSTS FROM MOTHER

Plaintiff, being the prevailing
party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.

MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PANEL Douglas B. Shapiro, Kathleen Jansen, Pat M. Donofrio

Posted here by
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
Or
http://dumpmyspouse.com/
SEE
[1]
STATE C O U R T O F A P P E A L S,JOHN E. WILBER, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-
Appellant, UNPUBLISHED,May 20, 2010,v No. 293804,Eaton Circuit Court,SKYE D. CARTER, LC No. 99-000882-DP,Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-,Appellee.Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and JANSEN and DONOFRIO, JJ.PER CURIAM.
At http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2010/052010/45902.pdf
[2]
Modifications have been made by Terry Bankert shown as CAP HEADLING TYPE or cited as (trb) other sources made be included and cited.

If Sandra Bullock lived in Eaton County could she get custody of Jesse James daughter?

COULD SANDRA BULLOCK SEEK GUARDIANSHIP AND THEN CUSTODY OF THE CHILD OF JESSE JAMES ?
*****
Find Your Michigan Family Law Attorney http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/
*****

Jesse James Once Again In Child Custody Battle With Ex-Wife[1]Eaton Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert comments on the Family Law applicable if Jesse James Custody case was in Michigan.

CHILD CUSTODYThe Press released recently, Motorcycle builder Jesse James is once again in fights with ex-wife Janine Lindermulder over their child . James is now married to Sandra Bullock as of July 2005, but the fight over custody with his ex-wife returns in light of the now alleged scandal.[1]Jesse James has Custody of his daughter.In Michigan and Eaton Divorce Courts the Child Custody Act demands an assessment of the ability of individual parents to care for their children. The act standardizes the criteria for the best interests of the child and creates a comprehensive framework for decisions regarding child custody. Wealton v Wealton, 120 Mich App 406, 327 NW2d 493 (1982).　

CHANGE IN CHILD CUSTODYThe porn star ex-wife of Sandra Bullock's hubby has reportedly decided to take him to court to get custody of their daughter. [2]In Michigan and Eaton Divorce Court a child custody order is never unchangeable. The Child Custody Act allows a trial court to modify child custody orders “for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances,” and if in the child’s best interests. MCL 722.27(1)(c).There is a lot of proper cause here.　

DAD HAS CUSTODY OF DAUGHTERJames currently has full custody of Sunny since Lindermulder lives in a halfway house after being found guilty of tax evasion, TMZ reported.[2]Sources told the celebrity site that Lindermulder knew she didn't stand a chance of gaining even partial custody from James…[2]　 In Michigan and Eaton Divorce Court the court must consider three issues before modifying a custody order: (1)Has the petitioner carried the initial burden of establishing either “proper cause shown” or a “change of circumstances”? (2) Is there an established custodial environment? and (3) Is the modification in the best interests of the child?The requirement to find a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to “erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

NON CUSTODIAL EX PORN STAR MOM IS IN HALF WAY HOUSE AFTER PRISON.Lindermulder is hoping to get her six-year-old daughter Sunny back, although she currently lives in a halfway house after the feds busted her for tax evasion . [1]If this were a Eaton Divorce Court cause the burden will be on Lindermulder to show a change in circumstances.The Eaton Divorce Courts first issue will be to considered whether the biological mother has shown the requisite “proper cause” or “change of circumstances” directed by MCL 722.27(1)(c). Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 675 NW2d 847 (2003). The existence of proper cause or a change of circumstances is a threshold matter in any consideration of a change to a prior custody order. The biological mother here has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists before the trial court can consider whether an established custodial environment exists (thus establishing the burden of proof) and conduct a review of the best interests factors. Id. at 509.　

MOM ADMITS SHE CANNOT PROVIDE STABILIZING ENVIRONMENTLindermulder previously believed, say sources, that she would have a difficult time getting even partial custody of Sunny because Bullock was considered "a stabilizing family influence." [1]A Michgian Eaton Divorce Court must follow the Michigan Child Custody Act which contains a strong policy statement that “the best interests of the child” must be the court’s controlling guide in custody disputes. MCL 722.25. MCL 722.23 defines the “best interests of the child” . Stability is directly addressed in section (d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.　
IS DAD CURRENT MARITAL ISSUES ENOUGH TO CHANGE CUSTODY?Now, sources state, in light of the scandal, Lindermulder hopes she has a better chance of getting her daughter back.[1]GREAT STEP MOTHERBefore the scandal broke, Bullock had stated her joy in helping to raise Sunny, even having helped James get custody of the girl.[1]

MOTHERHOODIn her Oscar acceptance speech for The Blind Side, Bullock said, "I would like to thank what this film is about for me, which are the mom’s that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from. Those moms and parents never get thanked."

CAN ESTRANGED WIFE AND STEP MOTHER GET CUSTODY?However, Bullock isn't through with her stepdaughter Sunny, Bradley said. US has reported that she's looking to get custody of the 6-year-old girl, Bradley said. [3]Jacobs said on "The Early Show," "Think about it, Sandra's been married to Jesse for five years and they have raised this girl together. Her mother, her biological mother, is in a halfway house, she was a former porn star, she's an admitted drug addict. [3]So basically Sandra has been this girl's mother. [3]Now she wants to divorce Jesse, but she still wants to raise Sunny.[3]It's an interesting legal question, because Sandra, of course, is not the biological (mother) or (has any) legal claims to this girl. But she basically is her mother." [3]Bullock's representatives have denied the star is seeking custody. [3]

IF THIS WAS A MICHIGAN CASE SANDRA BULLOCK COULD SEEK GUARDIANSHIPJames is currently in a rehabilitation facility for sex and drug addiction, according to Radar Online and US Weekly. [3]Lindermulder is hoping to get her six-year-old daughter Sunny back, although she currently lives in a halfway house after the feds busted her for tax evasion . [1]In Michigan and Eaton a minor guardianship is a mechanism to give a person other than a custodial parent power to make decisions on behalf of a minor. A custodial parent may join the armed forces, enter drug treatment, be sent to prison, be too young to handle parenting responsibilities, or simply disappear. If the child is left with a person without legal authority a guardianship may be sought.A full guardianship could be found in a Michigan court if it were the proper jurisdiction,which it is not, based on the following.The parent or parents have permitted the minor to reside with another person and have not provided that person with legal authority for the care and maintenance of the minor. MCL 700.5204(2)(b). These circumstances must exist at the time the petition is filed.　

AFTER STEP MOM GETS GUARDIANSHIP SHE CAN SEEK CUSTODY.A guardian or limited guardian of a child can bring an action for custody of the child. MCL 722.26b; see also Walterhouse v Ackley, 459 Mich 924, 589 NW2d 780 (1998) (statutory provision that gives limited guardians standing to seek custody may be applied to guardianships in place before statute’s 1990 effective date). MCL 722.26b.

Posted here byTerry Bankert
http://www.attorneybankert.com/

See.[1]http://tmdcelebritynews.com/headlines-jesse-james-once-again-in-child-custody-battle-with-ex-wife/05194[2]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bullock_hubby_in_renewed_child_custody_FrIVidsBvn8TdJjBnE3jKK[3]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/31/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/main6350168.shtml

Eaton County Temporary restraining order.

Eaton County :DIVORCE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
What is a temporary restraining order from a Eaton County County Family Court?
Requirements for a Eaton County Divorce Attorney seeking and the court granting a temporary restraining order (TRO): Eaton County Fathers Rights , Childrens Rights and Eaton County Mothers Rights equally apply.
It clearly appears from specific facts, as Prepared by a Eaton County Divorce Lawyer, shown in an affidavit or a verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant from the delay required to effect notice, or that notice itself will precipitate adverse action before an order can be entered.
The applicant’s Eaton County Attorney certifies in writing any efforts to give notice and why notice should not be required.
A permanent record , By A Eaton County Family Court Judge, is made of non written evidence, arguments, or representations supporting the application. A record is what is done in front of a Eaton County Family Court Judge after the case is called. The record is produced by ordering transcripts.
The order, prepared by your Eaton County Divorce attorney, must be (1) endorsed with the date and time it is issued, (2) describe the injury and why it is irreparable, and (3) state why the order was granted without notice.
Domestic relations TROs (unlike others) need not expire within a fixed period, and the court need not set a date for further hearing.
Motions for Temporary Orders as prepared by your Eaton County Divorce Lawyer outline follows;

A Eaton County Lawyer will prepare your Motions for temporary orders . Eaton County attorney pleadings typically concern Eaton County child custody and Eaton County support, Eaton County parenting time adjustments, marital restraints on distributing property, residence in the marital home, sometimes called exclusive use of the marital home, and requests for Eaton County attorney fees.
A Eaton County Lawyer’ s motion for a temporary order differs from an ex parte order in that it may not be granted without a hearing, unless the parties agree otherwise. MCR 3.207©)(2).
The motion may be made , by your Eaton County Legal Counsel, at any time during the pendency of a case by filing a verified motion setting forth facts sufficient to support the relief requested. MCR 3.207©)(1).
Other provisions regarding the Eaton County Divorce temporary order include the following:
The Eaton County Divorce order may be modified at any time, following a hearing and on a showing of good cause.
The Eaton County Divorce order must state its effective date and whether it may be modified retroactively by a subsequent order.
The Eaton County Divorce order remains in effect until modified or until entry of the final judgment or order.
The Eaton County Divorce Temporary order vacated by entry of the final judgment or order, unless specifically continued or preserved. An exception is support arrearage that have been assigned to the state.
MCR 3.207©)(3)–(6).
Your Eaton County Judge may not grant exclusive use of the marital home to one party in the absence of evidence of abusive conduct, a risk of physical harm, or conduct detrimental psychologically or emotionally to the children. That the petitioner is "uncomfortable" with the living arrangement probably does not justify depriving the other party of a residence.
At any time, a Eaton County Divorce party may request that the court order the other party to pay all or part of the attorney fees and expenses related to the action or a specific proceeding, including a Eaton County post judgment proceeding. The motion must allege facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is unable to bear the expense and that the other party is able to pay. Alternatively, the motion must allege facts sufficient to show that the fees and expenses were incurred because the other party was able to comply with a previous court order but refused. MCR 3.206©).
Posted here by
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
and
http://dumpmyspouse.com

Eaton No fault Divorce

What is a no-fault divorce?
In Eaton County A no-fault divorce is one in which neither spouse (husband or wife) blames the other in court documents for the breakdown of the marriage. You should consult an attorney / lawyer for your divorce. To find an attorney contact dumpmyspouse , or attorneybankert ( Terry Bankert). Just google these names. Your Eatorn Attorney will tell you no accusations or need to prove "guilt" or cause of the breakdown are required. Your Eaton Lawyer will tell you A common basis for a no-fault divorce is "irreconcilable differences" or "irretrievable marriage breakdown." In a simple divorce or a contested one ,As those terms imply, the marriage is considered to be over, but the court and the legal documents do not try to assign blame. You may have a legal separation or an informal one. Your Eaton Divorce Attorney will advise: Another common basis for no-fault divorce is the parties living separately for a certain period of time, such as for six months or a year, with the intent that the separation be permanent. Fault can be used to decide who get what property.

Eaton County

Eaton
http://www.eatoncounty.org/site3.aspx
1045 Independence Charlotte, MI 48813(517) 543-7500
Area: 576 smEst: 1837Pop: 103,655Pop/sm: 179.8Seat: Charlotte

Terry R. Bankert P.C.

http://attorneybankert.com/