LAW SCHOOL FAMILY LAW PROFESSORS , WHAT THEY THINK IS IMPORTANT!

Flint Family Law,Divorce Attorney Thoughts on the 4th Annual Midwest Family Law Consortium: Family Law in the 21st Century hosted by the Michigan State College of Law June 17-17 2011


Reflections of Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert 810-235-1970. http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/

 or http://www.attorneybankert.com/

 Yes I am SEO here, you got me. Oh, I forgot, http://www.nojokebeingbroke.com/


FAMILY LAW IN THE 21ST CENTURY, divorce, child support, parenting time, custody and stuff.


I recieved a card promoting this event but placed it on the corner of my desk that I keep for wishful thinking. I had a scheduled hearing in conflict with the June 16-17 date of the event. Located in Lansing on the campus of Michigan State University College of Law I was interested.

Mid week my conflict left and I reached out to go hastely sending in my lonely $100 bucks.


The program talked of a reception and dinner the night before, we made inquiry and were given the location and time. This I attended.


The promo stated “ The first decade of the 21st century has been an exciting time for Family Law Scholars, Teachers and Practitioners.” I believe I was the only current practitioner.( lab rat). The Professors I am sure had extensive practice expierence before assending the Ivry Tower.


Justice Marilyn Kelly was the keynote speaker at lunch on Friday the program day. How could I not go, the holy grail of Michigan Family Law intelligence was speaking. I am moitivated to protect the fatherhood rights of putative fathers. Her presentation was motivating.


But back to the Thursday reception. We dined at Michells Fish Market in a location called East Gate(?). I thought I was in a new commercial development in Atlanta Ga. It sure did not look like Flint to me.( Yest it was Lansing).


What I was at was the preconference reception for the presenters, I think I basically crashed it. I am told I did not. But  I think the are just being polite.


The program facilitators were very gracious and made me feel at home and welcome. I had the time of my life. I was able to engage in a level of conversation that is usually fleeting for me. In the end though they were the scientists and I was the lab rat. Scholarly law professors toying with  a court house practice  family law lawyer from violence & depression ridden Flint MI. I thank everyone for the great time.


The last time I was in the MSU Law Library was when I debated Profesor Bitinski on the use of force and child protective proceeding. I took the side of parents being able to beat disobedience out of the little miscreants. It was sponsored by the Federalist Society. I was in unfriendly territory but had my usual good time.Did I tell you I am from Flint MI the most violent city in America and was a 5th Army Drill Sergeant! Bring it on. After all life is to short not to.


The dinner was great I ordered clam chowder, steak and key lime pie. I prattled on so much, I am a talkative lab rat, that I finished only ½ of the best steak I will have this year. Just where were my priorities.


Interesting discussion on the rights of putative fathers. Combining this with the presentation of Justice Kelly my awarness of this travisty of justice in Family Law was enhanced. The Consortium, a room full of law school professors, went well. The presentations were broken up into panels.


WELCOME

We were welcomed by Melanie B. Jacobs Michigan State University College of Law, Cynthia Lee Starnes Michigan State College of Law, and Dean Joan H. Howarth Michigan State College of Law.


PANEL NUMBER ONE “ ISSUES IN REPRODUCTION.”

(1)First up was Jamie R Abrahams Hofstra University Law School of Law Presenting “ Distorted and Diminished Tort remedies for birthing mothers."

(2) Mary Patricia Byrn William Michell College of Law “ Why Banning anonymous Gamete (sperm & egg) donation is a bad idea and probably unconstitutional”

(3) Deborah L. Forman Whittier Law School “ Embryo Disposition and Divorce: Why Clinic consent forms are not the answer.”

(4) Maya Manian University of San Francisco School of Law.” Parents, Minors, and Minor Parents: A Family Law Perspective on Adolescents Reproductive Rights.”

The above panel was moderated by Helene S. Shapo Northwestern University School of Law.


PANEL NUMBER TWO “ ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW.”


(5) Ann Laquer Estin University of Iowa College of Law “ International Issues in Child Welfare Cases”.


(6) Richard F. Storrow “ The City University of New York School of Law.” The Phantom Children of the Republic: Surrogacy, Globialization and the New Illegitimacy.


(7) Shani M. King Universaity of Florida Levin College of Law “ The right to counsel for unaccompanied minors”


This panel was moderated by Leslie J.Harris University of Oregon School of Law.


(8)KEYNOTE ADDRESS DURING LUNCH BY JUSTICE MARILYN KELLY


PANEL NUMBER THREE “ ISSUES IN PATERNITY AND PARENTHOOD”


(9) Cynthia Godsoe Brooklyn Law School “ Parsing Parenthood.”


(10) Jeffrey A. Parnes The John Marshall Law School “ Paternity After Lehr and Michael H.”


(11) Dara E Purvis, University of Illinois College of Law “ Same-Sex intended Parents and the Problem of perspective.”


This panel moderated by Maya Manian, University of San Francisco School of Law.”


PANEL NUMBER FOUR “ ISSUES IN MARRAIGE AND DIVORCE”


(12) Jessica Knouse University of Toledo College of Law “ Civil marraige: threat to democracy”


(13) Mark Strasser Capital University Law School “ Child Welfare and promotion of marraige.”


This Panel moderated by Nina W. Tarr, University of Illinois College of Law”



PANEL NUMBER FIVE” FAMILY LAW IN PERSPECTIVE”

(14) June Carbone University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law “ The emergence of Family as a marker of class.”



(15) Barbara Glesner Fines University of Misouri Kansas City School of Law “ How Family Law practice has changed in the past 50 years.”



(16) Leslie J Harris University of Oregon School of Law “ Implications of the fragile families studies for the Law of Family Formation and child support.



(17) Charles Reid University of St. Thomas ( Minnesota) “ Lucifers Children; A story of Free Love, Religion, Politics and Law.



This panel was moderatede by Mary Jean Dolan The John Marshall Law School.





Now you will note there were 17 presenters and five moderators, plus 3 organizers from Michigan State plus Justice Kelly and one practicioner (me) additionally counting the one student who came in mid afternoon this number is 28. The exact number in attendance. As a practitioner I paid $100, a bargain by any measure. ( possibly the only one who gladly paid anything). No papers were distributed.I will not post my full notes because I was not as attentive during all presentations.


Mabey next year I will offer a paper . Titled? “ HEY...Here is what you should really teach us about Family Law in Law School, just what were you thinking!”


JUST FOR THE RECORD I AM AVAILABLE TO GUEST LECTURE. I work for steak. I can drive buying my own gas and return to my own housing if interested the following schools may contact me for this protein compensated service; Michigan State College of Law , Thomas Cooley Law School( Alma Mater) , University of Michigan Law School. Jealous your school is not on my list? Give me a call.......... Just saying. 810-235-1970.



TERRY BANKERT

810-235-1970

Link to this site.
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/2011/06/law-school-family-law-professors-what.html

Sphere: Related Content

FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT (810) 235-1970 PRESENTS SEVERAL DOMESTIC ISSUES

FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT (810) 235-1970 PRESENTS SEVERAL DOMESTIC Issues:


1.Divorce;

2.Whether the trial court exceeded its authority when it ordered further arbitration based on facts that occurred after the decedent-ex-husband's death; Bayati v. Bayati; Kaleva-Norman-Dickson Sch. Dist. v. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson Teachers' Ass'n; Miller v. Miller; MCL 600.5081;

3.Whether the trial court properly refused to enter an amended judgment of divorce;

4.A consent judgment of divorce; MacInnes v. MacInnes; Laffin v. Laffin;

5.Whether the plaintiff-PR was time-barred from seeking enforcement of the arbitration award; Waiver;

6.Whether the defense of "laches" barred plaintiff's motion for entry of an amended judgment of divorce; Rowry v. University of MI; Nielsen v. Barnett; Lothian v. Detroit;

7.Whether the doctrine of "unclean hands" barred plaintiff's claim; Richards v. Tibaldi; Derosia v. Austin;

8.Whether general principles of equity barred plaintiff's clai

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished 04/19/11),Case Name: Axxxxx v. Axxxxx,e-Journal Number: 48614,Judge(s): Per Curiam – Gleicher, Sawyer, and Markey, No. 296595, Oakland Circuit Court, Family Division,LC No. 2000-639921-DO

The court held that the trial court erred by remanding the case for issuance of an updated binding arbitration report and award based on changes in circumstances following the decedent-ex-husband's death.



No party filed a motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award, and no ground existed allowing the trial court to vacate or modify the award in this case.



However, the court held that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff-PR's motion for entry of an amended judgment of divorce.



Thus, the court reversed the trial court's order remanding the case for further arbitration and remanded the case for entry of an order denying plaintiff's motion as barred by the defenses of laches and unclean hands, as well as general principles of equity.

FACTS OF CASE

The decedent and the defendant-ex-wife divorced after over 14 years of marriage. In their consent judgment of divorce, they agreed to submit the division of marital property to binding arbitration, and to incorporate the arbitration award into an amended judgment of divorce. One asset that the arbitrator was to consider was a piece of real estate (the Eagle River property). In 1/03 the arbitrator awarded the property to the parties as tenants in common and gave the decedent the right to purchase defendant's interest in it by paying her $30,000 within 120 days. The arbitration award was never incorporated into an amended divorce judgment. The decedent died just over 2 months after the award was issued and before the 120-day window to buy defendant's interest in the Eagle River property expired. Defendant apparently spent $90,000 to redeem the property after a foreclosure. The court concluded that it was significant that the parties agreed to one arbitration - whatever decision was rendered in that one arbitration would become binding. They "did not agree to further arbitration based on changes in circumstances occurring after the arbitrator rendered his decision or after the decedent died." The court held that the trial court erred by ordering further arbitration in light of events occurring after the decedent's death, expanding the scope of arbitration for which the parties contracted. As to plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to enter an amended divorce judgment, the court held that the defendant suffered prejudice from the delay of over six years in the case (as "evidenced by the extreme change in circumstances surrounding the disputed property"). Further, the court agreed with defendant that plaintiff could not "seek enforcement of the same arbitration award that the decedent (and later the estate) breached." The arbitration award held the decedent fully responsible for all debts related to the Eagle River property, and mandated that neither party take any action to incur any further liens on the property. "Despite these provisions, the decedent (and later the estate) failed to make home equity loan payments on the Eagle River property and allowed it to go into foreclosure." This was a violation of the arbitration award.



LAW OF THE CASE

–

“A party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue which he

has not agreed to submit to arbitration.” Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist v Kaleva-

Norman-Dickson Teachers’ Ass’n, 393 Mich 583, 587; 227 NW2d 500 (1975).

-

MCL 600.50811 governs the vacation or modification of arbitration awards in domestic

relation matters:

(1) If a party applies to the circuit court for vacation or modification of an

arbitrator’s award issued under this chapter, the court shall review the award as

provided in this section or section 5080.

(2) If a party applies under this section, the court shall vacate an award

under any of the following circumstances:

(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means.

(b) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral,

corruption of an arbitrator, or misconduct prejudicing a party’s rights.

(c) The arbitrator exceeded his or her powers.



(d) The arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing on a showing of

sufficient cause, refused to hear evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise

conducted the hearing to prejudice substantially a party’s rights.

(3) The fact that the relief granted in an arbitration award could not be

granted by a court of law or equity is not grounds for vacating or refusing to

confirm the award.

(4) An application to vacate an award on grounds stated in subsection

(2)(a) shall be made within 21 days after the grounds are known or should have

been known.

(5) If the court vacates an award, the court may order a rehearing before a

new arbitrator chosen as provided in the agreement or, if there is no such

provision, by the court. If the award is vacated on the grounds stated in

subsection (2)(a) or (c), the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrator who

made the award.

-

Consent judgments of divorce, like all other contracts entered between two

parties acting of their own free will, are to be construed and applied as such. Id. As a panel of

this Court stated in Laffin v Laffin, 280 Mich App 513, 517; 760 NW2d 738 (2008):

If no reasonable person could dispute the meaning of ordinary and plain contract

language, the Court must accept and enforce contractual language as written,

unless the contract is contrary to law or public policy. In general, consent

judgments are final and binding upon the court and the parties, and cannot be

modified absent fraud, mistake, or unconscionable advantage. [Citations

omitted.]

-

As the Michigan Supreme Court alluded to in Rowry, 441 Mich at 11, the applicable

statute of limitations at law may provide insight, by analogy, in determining the period of delay

after which laches may operate to bar a claim in a court of equity:

“The omission to do what one is by law required to do to protect his rights, and

which justifies a fair presumption that he has abandoned the same, under

circumstances which misled or prejudiced an adverse party, may in equity operate

as laches which bar[s] the assertion of such right later under changed conditions,

even though the statute of limitations has not run.” [Id., quoting Olson v

Williams, 185 Mich 294, 301; 151 NW 1043 (1915).]

-

With regard to contractual disputes, specific performance of a contract may be granted only

where the party seeking such relief has tendered full performance. Derosia v Austin, 115 Mich

App 647, 652; 321 NW2d 760 (1982).

-









-





Dailey intrenet new from Flint MI USA

Sphere: Related Content

A BANKRUTPCY ? - FLINT BANKRUPTCY ! $99 DOWN WITH PAYMENT PLAN. (810) 235-1970

A BANKRUTPCY ? - FLINT BANKRUPTCY ! $99 DOWN WITH PAYMENT PLAN. (810) 235-1970


Are you saying “ I need to stop the harassing phone calls, or get rid of my bills, file chapter 7 bankruptcy, I am broke and its no joke?” Call Bankruptcy Attorney Terry Bankert.

http://www.nojokebeingbroke.com/


DID YOU KNOW THAT IN BANKRUPTCY

Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1), a reaffirmation agreement is not enforceable unless it “was made before the granting of the discharge under section 727.” In one case the Debtor and Ford Motor Credit Company LLC did not make the reaffirmation agreement at issue until Ford Motor Credit Company LLC executed it on either May 2 or May 8, 2011, and therefore after Debtor was

granted a discharge on April 26, 2011, there can be no enforceable reaffirmation agreement between these parties in this case.

If you have Bankruptcy questions contact Terry Bankert at http://www.attorneybankert.com/

If you need divorce or child support information any where in Michigan look to http://www.dumpmyspouse.com/





Dailey internet new from Flint MI USA

Sphere: Related Content