John D. Voelker

This case involved a divorce from bed and board in which the decree required the defendant husband to pay weekly support for his wife and three minor children, plus arrearages, and imposed a lien on his property. After the husband moved to Canada and failed to make payments, the plaintiff sought appointment of a receiver to collect his Detroit police pension checks to satisfy the support obligations. The defendant challenged the receiver's appointment on grounds of improper service, lack of jurisdiction, and a city charter provision exempting pensions from execution, garnishment, or other court orders, and also sought modification of the decree. The court affirmed the receiver's appointment and denial of modification, holding that the state's alimony enforcement statute takes precedence over the charter exemption when enforcing support orders for a spouse and children, and that the evidence supported the lower court's refusal to modify the decree.

family law

This case concerned a dispute over whether interest could be added to a workers' compensation award in favor of the minor children of a deceased employee. After an initial award was affirmed on appeal, the circuit court entered judgment and included interest starting from the date of the appeal board's order. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to award any interest because the workers' compensation statute neither provides for nor forbids it, and the court's role is limited to entering judgment to enforce the award as made without adding new terms. The Court reasoned that the entire proceeding is statutory, so rights and obligations must be determined strictly from the act's provisions, and any allowance of interest is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an elderly pedestrian, Mary Smith, who was injured while crossing an intersection in Detroit and sued the driver and owner of a car for negligence, claiming the vehicle either struck her or caused her to fall by startling her during a left turn. The defendants denied negligence and argued the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to observe properly while crossing. A jury returned a verdict of no cause of action for the defendants, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the jury instructions inadequately addressed contributory negligence and proximate cause and overemphasized her alleged negligence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions as a whole fairly covered the relevant legal issues and that no grave error or manifest prejudice justified disturbing the jury's verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved parents suing the driver of a car that struck their 9-year-old daughter as she crossed a busy Detroit street mid-block from behind a parked car, seeking damages for her injuries. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the child was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, given her intelligence, safety training, and failure to fully look for oncoming traffic before stepping out. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the child's actions presented no reasonable question of fact for a jury because she was aware of the dangers and her conduct necessarily contributed to the accident. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs but concluded that her admitted failure to look left before taking the final step made contributory negligence a legal question rather than a factual one.

torts & liability

The case involved defendant Winkle, who was convicted after a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon and possessing burglar tools, based on a loaded revolver, nitroglycerin, detonators, and various tools found in his car. Michigan State Police officers discovered the items during a warrantless search following a traffic stop for running a red light, and the trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the 1952 amendment to article 2, § 10 of the Michigan Constitution (1908) expressly allows admission of enumerated items like firearms and explosives seized outside the curtilage of a dwelling house, regardless of whether the search was reasonable or incident to a valid arrest. The decision followed the court's prior holding in People v. Gonzales that the amendment does not violate the U.S. Constitution, and the court found any potential error in admitting additional items non-prejudicial given the clearly admissible evidence.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of approximately 40 acres of land, where buyer Walter Frakes agreed to purchase the property from seller Paul Eghigian for $40,000, but the Eghigians repeatedly avoided scheduled closing meetings. The trial court found that the seller intentionally evaded the closings, that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to perform with funds available, and that a formal tender was unnecessary due to the seller's conduct amounting to repudiation; it also rejected claims that the land was partnership property. The court granted the buyer specific performance or, alternatively, damages of $30,000 after the seller failed to deliver clear title within a set period. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decree, upholding the factual findings and the ruling that the seller's acts rendered tender unnecessary under precedents like Hanesworth v. Hendrickson.

property

The case involved plaintiffs who purchased land in what became the City of Madison Heights to operate a trailer park, which they built and operated openly despite an existing township zoning ordinance that prohibited such use. After incorporation, the city adopted the township's zoning ordinance by reference in its charter and later amended it to rezone the property in a way that still barred trailer parks, then began enforcing the restrictions through police tickets. The plaintiffs sued to declare the ordinance invalid as applied to them. The court held the zoning ordinance invalid, ruling that the city failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure for adopting zoning ordinances under state law, as established in prior precedent requiring strict compliance for home-rule cities. The decision affirmed the lower court's decree without addressing the ordinance's reasonableness, noting that subsequent legislation addressed the procedural gap but did not apply retroactively here.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the custody of a young child between the child's unwed mother and the Evans family, who had taken the child into their home after the birth and refused to return the child after the mother left their household. The mother filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court seeking the child's return, but the court followed a recommendation from the friend of the court to deny the petition and later denied a rehearing without reviewing the transcript of the proceedings before the friend of the court. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower court's orders, holding that the trial judge abused discretion by failing to consider the available transcript and by not conducting an adequate review before denying a natural parent custody against claims by non-parents. The court remanded the case for a full rehearing on the merits in circuit court, emphasizing that the ultimate responsibility for deciding contested custody matters rests with the judge and cannot be delegated. The topics relevant to this opinion are family law and procedure.

family lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Joseph Patrick purchased rotenone powder from defendants' drug store, used it to dust mink nests to repel fleas, and subsequently lost over 1,100 mink kits, leading him to sue on counts of negligence (based on common-law duty and a state insecticide statute) and breach of warranty that the product was safe. A jury awarded Patrick $50,000, and defendants appealed, arguing that the trial judge's remarks were prejudicial and that the jury instructions improperly expanded the negligence standard beyond the pleadings to include druggist duties and common-law care. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the remarks did not deny a fair trial and that the instructions were appropriate because they allowed the jury to apply varying standards depending on factual findings about the product's nature and the defendants' repackaging, without abandoning the common-law claims. The court also found the warranty instructions fair and adequate overall.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a contested petition to modify a divorce decree's child custody award, originally granting custody to the mother, by transferring it to the father. The lower court granted the father's petition without hearing testimony, relying instead on an oral report from the friend of the court. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the modification order and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that prior precedents require an adequate evidentiary record to assess whether any change in circumstances justifies altering custody. The Court emphasized the need for a full hearing before the chancellor to support such decisions, particularly given the potential for future modifications.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned a minor who suffered severe burns in 1944, leading to a personal injury lawsuit and settlement in New York that was approved by a Michigan probate court. The child's guardian had entered a 50% contingent-fee agreement with the defendant attorneys, which the probate court initially approved in 1948 and supplemented in 1949 after the settlement. Years later, the now-adult petitioner sought to set aside the supplemental fee order via a rehearing petition, which the probate court denied. The circuit court and this court limited review to whether the probate court abused its discretion in denying rehearing, finding no abuse because the judge had thoroughly considered the matter, the original orders authorized the fees, and timely appeal from the 1949 order was not pursued.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

In Stevens v. Graf, plaintiff Allen Stevens, a trucker, sued defendant V. L. Graf personally after performing moving services on machinery at Graf's request, as the bill went unpaid; Graf, president of the financially distressed V. L. Graf Company corporation, maintained he had disclosed he was acting solely on behalf of the corporation, which had previously paid for similar services. The trial court found for the plaintiff on an agency theory, ruling that Graf failed to adequately disclose his principal, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that an agent bears the duty to clearly disclose the principal to avoid personal liability, and here the evidence supported that Graf did not sufficiently do so, particularly given the similar names, the personal ownership of the machines, and the lack of clear communication or documentation. The court rejected arguments that prior billing practices or corporate records conclusively established disclosure, noting joint liability was possible and that no corporate veil piercing was involved.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs injured at an air show on a city-owned commercial airport when a Michigan National Guard truck snapped a rope; they sued the city and the event sponsor after settling with the state and guard. The trial court dismissed the claims against the city for failure to comply with a charter provision requiring both 60-day notice and a reasonable time for investigation before filing suit, though it invalidated the 60-day rule as conflicting with the state's 3-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that because the city was performing a proprietary function by operating the airport, its charter could not impose a pre-suit waiting period that effectively shortened the statutory limitations period, as that would conflict with general state law. The court distinguished this from potential governmental functions and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns a property owner who sought a permit to fill marshy, unusable lowlands on her Farmington Township property with dry rubbish to enable its use for the commercial and residential purposes for which it was zoned. The township denied the permit, citing the zoning ordinance's prohibition on commercial dumps and potential impacts on the River Rouge flood plain. The trial court issued an injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance against the property, concluding it was unreasonable and confiscatory. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the land could not practically serve its zoned uses without the fill, that the proposed work would improve rather than harm public health and safety, and that the zoning ordinance did not address flood control; it relied on precedent finding similar restrictions unconstitutional as applied.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Galea sued the defendant bank (as owner/trustee of a building) and prospective tenant Abraham after an awning detached and fell on him while he walked on a Detroit sidewalk, causing injuries; he alleged both negligence and nuisance. The trial court, sitting without a jury, dismissed the claims against both defendants for lack of evidence connecting them to the accident. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sudden fall of the awning due to unauthorized human intervention (workmen removing bolts and cutting it) did not constitute an actionable nuisance, and that the record contained insufficient proof of any negligence or authorization by either defendant. The court also upheld the dismissal of the tenant despite procedural issues with adverse-party testimony, finding the factual determination in his favor was supported under the applicable standard.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Greene v. Greene, the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed a dispute arising from a 1957 divorce decree that included a property settlement awarding the former husband certain properties in exchange for $8,000 paid in installments, with a clause providing that title would vest in the parties as tenants in common if any payment was more than 30 days late. After the husband defaulted on the next-to-last installment by a few days but then paid the full amount, the former wife petitioned to enforce the forfeiture provision while the husband cross-petitioned to compel acceptance of payment and conveyance of title. The court affirmed the chancellor's order denying the wife's petition and granting the husband's, holding that the breach was technical rather than material or substantial in light of the decree's basic purpose of ensuring the wife received fair compensation for her interest without undue delay. The decision emphasized the chancellor's equitable discretion to resolve enforcement disputes without being limited to strict application of the decree's literal terms or a mere denial of requested relief.

family lawproperty

The case involved a township and residents seeking to enforce a 1952 zoning ordinance that limited mobile homes to commercial trailer parks against defendants who placed and lived in a trailer on their residentially zoned lot. The trial court upheld the ordinance as valid, found the violation to be a nuisance per se, and enjoined the defendants from further habitation there. On appeal, the court reversed the decree, ruling that enforcement against these defendants was unconstitutionally discriminatory because the township had permitted identical nonconforming trailer uses by others in the immediate area without taking action. The decision relied on prior precedent holding that selective enforcement of zoning restrictions in the same locality undermines the ordinance and constitutes unlawful discrimination.

property

The case involved Huron Portland Cement Co. challenging the City of Detroit's smoke abatement ordinance, which prohibited the emission of dense smoke from vessels docked in the city, as applied to their steamships operating in interstate commerce. The company argued that federal legislation regulating vessels preempted the local ordinance. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, ruling that it was a valid exercise of the city's police power aimed at protecting public health from air pollution, did not conflict with federal laws focused on vessel safety, and only incidentally affected interstate commerce without directly regulating it.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

Homeowners sued their two insurers after an automobile damaged their Michigan house, seeking to set aside a $2,850 appraisal award that had been made under the policies' appraisal clause by an umpire appointed by the circuit court. The homeowners alleged fraud, mistake, procedural errors, and disregard of their appraiser, and asked the chancery court to vacate the award and appoint a new umpire. After hearing the homeowners' proofs, the chancellor found the allegations unsubstantiated, dismissed the complaint, and confirmed the original award. On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the chancellor's factual findings were entitled to great weight and that the record did not show error warranting reversal of the award made under the common-law appraisal agreement.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this divorce case, the original 1955 decree awarded custody of the young child to the mother with a condition requiring the child to remain in a foster home unless the parties agreed otherwise or the court ordered differently. The father later petitioned to modify the decree for custody, while the mother sought to remove the condition and retain absolute custody; after a hearing, the trial court awarded custody to the father with visitation rights for the mother. On appeal, the court reviewed the matter de novo but affirmed the modification, finding a sufficient change in circumstances since the original decree, including the mother's infrequent visits and the father's regular involvement and more suitable home environment, and concluding that the change served the child's best interests under applicable state law.

family law