Completing Divorce in One Year

In 2003, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an administrative order requiring all county family court judges to complete divorces within a year of their filing. Since that time, county family court judges have struggled to comply.

Under the Supreme Court's administrative rule, a family court must submit numbers of filed and completed cases to the State Court Administrative Office. All cases listed on the docket that were not, or are not going to be completed within the year must be accompanied by an explanation from the judge.

An elected sitting family court judge does not want to be explaining her slow-moving family court docket to state court administrators. This would only risk getting on the Michigan Supreme Court's radar.

Earlier this month, a Wayne County Family Court judge had the misfortune of lagging in this regard so badly that a formal complaint was filed with the Judicial Tenure Commission. Apparently, this judge developed a very "fast-and-loose" procedure whereby he would take brief testimony as to the breakdown of the marriage, or even accept the representations from counsel if the parties were not present, in order to count the case among those "resolved" when it came time to report his numbers to the SCAO each month.

Another tactic adopted by this judge back in 2010 was to dismiss the case from his docket, but then allow the lawyers to continue to work on the case. This way, the judge's numbers could stay off the Supreme Court's radar.

The ploy did not work, however, resulting in this Supreme Court order of rebuke. That did not prevent the good judge from developing other tactics to stay abreast of his administrative requirements.

All this has led us to question the wisdom of requiring divorces to be completed within one year. In most cases this is sufficient time to start, negotiate and complete a case.

Not all cases, however, fit the typical pattern. In some cases, there is the obstructionism, recalcitrance, and obstinance of one or both parties. There is also the lawyers’ and the judge’s agendas.

Complex high-value marital estates, for example, often require extra time to evaluate businesses, or assess stock grant contracts or non-qualified compensation packages. In other cases, custody disputes need extra time to sort out an acceptable resolution in the best interests of the minor children.

We suspect in such instances, a judge could avail herself of a reasonable explanation that would be acceptable to the case-counters.

Not all counties lend themselves to complete every case on the docket in a year. In Wayne County, for example, there may be a higher per-judge caseload then in some out-county family courts that have less population and thus, fewer cases filed.

Attempting to deceive the Supreme Court is never the way to go. Despite a docket backlog, the public and the judiciary should be able to expect that every judge in every county will use their best efforts to keep the cases on their docket on track and will see them through to timely completion.

This is just how the system is designed to work. Parties to a divorce do not wish to prolong their agony.

If you are experiencing a divorce that is going to drag out longer than one year, consider contacting our law firm for a free consultation so that your option of making a change of counsel can be assessed.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Divorce in the UK: Plenty of Fault to Go Round

London, England Divorce Attorney 
Vanessa Lloyd Platt

Here in Michigan, we have a "no fault" divorce system.  In many ways, the divorce process has been transformed into a largely administrative process that takes place outside the courtroom; this is a good thing.

In the UK, from where our common law system is derived, the divorce process remains fault-based.  Courtroom prowess is purchased in order to convince others to take of dim view of one's spouse.

Sunday's NYT profiled an already high-profile UK divorce attorney; Vanessa Lloyd Platt.  Although below the fold in Easter Sunday's paper, Ms. Platt, who practices in London, England, was nevertheless on the front page in an article featuring the fault component to the UK's divorce laws.

While most experienced divorce lawyers could, "write a book", Ms. Lloyd Platt's "war stories" are remarkable.  Take, for example, the client who sought a divorce because her husband demanded she dress and speak Klingon.  Yep, or the client that sued because his wife would only serve him his least favorite dish, tuna casserole, for month's on end.  Yum, and then there was the husband that refused to speak with his wife for 15-years, communicating solely via post-it notes.  Note to hubby: "get a life".

The family court judges in counties throughout Michigan would not care to hear such drivel.  Their UK counterparts, however, are compelled to sit through the details in order to assess fault in their divorce cases.  This feature of the storied UK legal system was the subject of some recent criticism propounded by Judge Mathew Thorpe, sitting on London's Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals judge was perhaps prompted to make the critical remarks on the record when forced to review a case that featured: alleged tampering with a television antenna; control of the household washing machine; and the wife's "revulsion for intensely farmed meat."

The legal issue in the case involved the existence of "fault" as a legal basis for a judgment of divorce.  In the UK, a divorce can only be granted upon an evidentiary showing that one of several categories of fault is established by the spouse lodging the divorce proceeding with the court.  In other words, they take the plaintiff's burden of production and persuasion seriously across the pond.

In turn, Judge Thorpe's remarks may have emboldened Ms. Lloyd Platt to lead the drive to chuck the "old-school" requirement of demonstrating fault in a divorce proceeding.   The London lawyer's campaign has included a published list of some of the most outrageous and remarkable cases of fault she and her UK colleagues could conjure.

The no-fault system works very well.  Our county family courts here in Michigan are well served by devoting scarce judicial resources to a determination of the "best interests" of the parties' children and an equitable property settlement.  There should be no occasion to air the details of a beauty contest turned pissing match.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com