Michigan divorce laws come from three sources. First, Old English Common Divorce Law, which are the laws brought to the United States in 1776. Second, Statutory Divorce Law which are laws passed by our legislature and governer (which replaced most Old English Common Divorce Law, such as eliminating common law marriage) and; Third, laws created by interpretation from the Court’s. In this article we will examine the New Michigan Divorce Laws of May 2025 as interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeals from various fact patterns.
The New Divorce Laws in Michigan for May 2025
At Findling Law, we read and review virtually every new divorce law and case written and here are the new Divorce Laws in Michigan during May 2025. If you need help navigating your situation, please feel comfortable reaching out. Below is a summary of the new divorce laws in Michigan for May 2025.
In Elizabeth A. Silverman, PC vs. Lawrence David Korn et. al. dated May 27, 2025. Elizabeth Silverman represented David Korn in his divorce from Margaret Clark. Ms. Silverman sued Ms. Clark for attorney fees. Ms. Korn, in turn, sued Ms. Silverman for malpractice. The trial court awarded Ms. Silverman attorney fees and dismissed the malpractice case against Ms. Silverman. Korn appealed, arguing in part that Ms. Silverman failed to conduct depostions and discovery. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal because Mr. Korn, among other things failed to demonstrate that he was damaged in any way. In other words, Mr. Korn failed to demonstrate a different or better result would have resulted if Ms. Silverman conducted discovery etc.
In Giordana vs. Giordana, dated May 27, 2025, the parties divorced in 2017 with three minor children sharing equal parenting time. Mr. Giordana had a rare medical condition and the Court examined the use of an Independent Medical Examination to determine if Mr. Giordana’s health could impact his ability to exercise parenting time.
In Dandan vs. Dandan, dated May 23, 2025, Ms. Dandan appeald the entry of a Judgment of Divorce by declining to conclude the marriage was based on fraud for immigration purposes. Therefore, since Ms. Dandan was deceaved into marriage, the marriage should have been annulled. The Court denied the request because the Ms. Dandan did not request an annullment during the case filing.
In Bruski vs. Moja, dated May 23, 2025. The parties divorced in 2010 by consent. In 2014, Ms. Moja moved to set aside the Judgment based on alleged misrepresentations and the court modified child support. A Motion to modify child support was filed again in February 2022 and the Friend of the Court recommended an increase after conducting an evidentiary hearing. On June 6, 2023 the trial court adopted the recomendation to increase child support again and Mr. Bruski appealed arguing in part that the modification violated the prohibition against retroactive modification of child support. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination.
In Omoregha vs. Omoregha, decided May 19, 2025, the Defendant appeal was premised on the notion that the trial court failed to admit bank statements into evidence from Nigerian bank accounts. The trial court determined that the Defendant did not provide a proper foundation for the admission of the bank statements under the Michigan Rules of Evidence (See: MRE 401 and 402) and therefore denied the appeal.
In Smeak vs. Olsen, decided May 14, 2025, the parties divorced in 2020 with shared parenting time. Thereafter, it became apparent that the parties were unable to coparent and multiple motions to modify followed. A trial occured regarding custody and the Defendant appealed the evidentiary standard used by the court in making the custody determination. Specifically, since the court determined that an established custodial environment existed with both parents, the appropraite burden of proof to apply is clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals determined the court did error in not applying the appropriate burden of proof, however, it did so implicitly because there was clear and convincing evidence to make the change.
In Lewis vs. Lewis, decided May 12, 2025, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for make the necessary findings of facts to support its award of property division. In doing so, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court failed to support its opinion with factual findings.
Let it be our privilege to help you manage your situation.
By: Daniel Findling (c) 2025.
Our Core Values
Ph. 248-399-3300 : Email:Daniel@Findlinglaw.com : After hours emergency?+1 (248) 633-8583
I have been exclusively practicing divorce and family law in Michigan for almost 30 years. The attorneys at Findling Law all share the core value of practicing law to help people navigate change in their lives, without compromising principles. We specialize in high socio-economic, high-profile and high-conflict cases, while also working with clients of all backgrounds. We recognize that the most important aspect of the practice of law is the application of the law to your specific circumstances. That is why we provide more free information on divorce and family law than any other Michigan law firm. We want to help you manage your situation. Allow our exceptional legal team to help you navigate the change in your life, without compromising principles.