Therefore, the Derror majority’s interpretation of the statute defies practicable workability given its tremendous potential for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”  People of Michigan v Feezel

When counsel works together towards resolution of the case, legal fees are reduced and clients are happier.  The last place clients want to be is in court.  Especially business clients who need to be at their business generating revenue not legal fees.

Michigan is a “no fault” divorce state

This means that the court takes the stance that both parties have contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. Therefore, the court does not award one party more property or other assets even if the other party is at fault.

In Michigan, the divorce process follows this timeline:

• A divorce without children takes about two months, but a divorce with children takes longer due to Michigan’s six-month waiting period for couples with children.
• Filing and Service of Process – the party seeking a divorce meets with his or her attorney, who prepares the complaint for divorce. The attorney files the complaint in the client’s (plaintiff’s) county. The plaintiff must have lived in Michigan for at least six months. The client’s spouse (defendant) will usually be served with the papers shortly thereafter.
• Resolving the Divorce – When the parties have decided how the marital assets and debts shall be divided, the Consent Judgment of Divorce is drafted and signed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and their lawyers.
• The plaintiff’s attorney sets a court date to enter the judgment; once the court enters the judgment, the divorce is final.

Padilla’s new rule of criminal constitutional procedure is

prospective only

In Padilla v. Kentucky,130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that illegal immigrants who are not advised that a guilty plea will subject them to automatic deportation have not received effective assistance of counsel.  Today in People v. Gomez, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Padilla does not apply to illegal immigrants who plead guilty and whose conviction was final before Padilla was decided—Padilla’s new rule of criminal constitutional procedure is prospective only.

Isaac Gomez, a citizen of Mexico and an “intelligent, hard-working individual,” pled no-contest to possession with intent to deliver marijuana under MCL 333.7401(2)(D)(3), tarnishing an “otherwise blemish-less life.”  Four years later, the Department of Homeland Security notified defendant that his conviction subjected him to deportation.  A year later, the Supreme Court issued the decision in Padilla.  Gomez filed a motion for relief from judgment, claiming that neither defense counsel nor the trial court ever asked him about his citizenship status, and that if he had been told that his plea would affect his immigration status, he would have instead proceeded to trial on the charges.

Proposed Senate Bill Number 974 would clear up disputes between landlords and tenants.  The text of the proposed bill states the MMA does not permit anyone to smoke, possess, or otherwise make medical use of marijuana on private property, in violation of a prohibition established by the property owner.  This means the landlords could point to this to support their anti-medial marijuana position.  Full text of the proposed bill below.

SENATE BILL No. 974

February 16, 2012, Introduced by Senators JONES, MARLEAU, BOOHER, SCHUITMAKER and MEEKHOF and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 2008 IL 1, entitled “Michigan medical marihuana act,” by amending section 7 (MCL 333.26427).

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

     7. Scope of Act.

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with

the provisions of this act.

(b) This act shall does not permit any person to do any of the following:

(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana at any of the following locations:

(A) in In a school bus.;

(B) on On the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school.; or

New super drunk law is no joke.

The Michigan Super Drunk law applies to drivers with no prior OUI convictions within the past seven years who operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .17% or higher. Drivers with a prior conviction within seven years face enhanced penalties, even more harsh then those for a typical Super Drunk conviction.

Under Michigan law, it is illegal to drive:

• While intoxicated, or impaired, by alcohol, illegal drugs, and some prescribed medications.
• With a bodily alcohol content of 0.08 or more. (This crime is one of the driving while intoxicated offenses.)
• With a bodily alcohol content of 0.17 or more. (This “High BAC” crime is one of the driving while intoxicated offenses.)
• With any amount of cocaine or a Schedule 1 controlled substance in your body. (For more information about Schedule 1 drugs, see section 7212 of the Michigan Public Health Code; MCL 333.7212.)  Note that a medical marijuana patient may be able to illegally drive with derivatives of marijuana in her body, but it is illegal to drive with any presence of THC in the body.

Devoted representation through divorce and child custody, support, and parenting time matters. We are attorneys and counselors. We takes this dual role seriously and are they for you. We understand that you need a trusted advisor when facing a divorce. You need someone who will provide accurate information when you are dealing with an emotional situation.