The defendant is entitled to relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the trial court erred in several respects.

The trial court in this divorce action failed – for the second time – to make the required findings on certain spousal support factors.

A trial court’s order reducing an award of spousal support must be vacated because the reduced award was inequitable in light of all the circumstances, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The order reducing the plaintiff’s spousal support obligation to the defendant by several thousand dollars each month must be vacated the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this spousal support case, the trial court relied on the wrong legal framework to reduce the defendant’s support obligation.

The trial court in this divorce action should not have denied the defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing and allowing the defendant to support her request for fees.

In Sullivan v Sullivan, pursuant to a prior remand order, awarded the defendant ex-wife half the value of the parties’ stock, as well as spousal support and attorney fees.

An ex-husband who was ordered to pay spousal support could not have the support terminated after the ex-wife entered into a “commitment ceremony” with another man.

In this divorce action, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the trial court erred in its award of spousal support and attorney fees to the plaintiff ex-wife.

The Court of Appeals found that the parties’ unambiguous consent judgment of divorce demonstrated their intent to only modify spousal support.

Earnings from the defendant-husband’s medical marijuana grow operation were correctly included in the parties’ marital estate during their divorce proceedings.

A trial court erred in distributing a divorcing couple’s marital property because the parties’ prenuptial agreement was ignored in doing so, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A spousal support award and the division of property in a divorce case must be vacated because the trial court engaged in a “parade of errors”.

The COA addressed an issue debated among family law attorneys: whether a party could seek to modify and extend an award of spousal support set by a trial court in the parties’ judgment of divorce.

On May 13, 2014, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a payor’s spousal support may be increased on the basis of a new spouse’s income. I

The Court of Appeals released a published opinion addressing spousal support and attorney fees in divorce cases in Myland v Myland.