Porter v. Porter
Michigan Court of Appeals
776 N.W.2d 377 (2009)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Mrs. Porter (plaintiff) and Mr. Porter (defendant) were involved in a custody dispute. The parties’ custody agreement required Mrs. Porter to allow Mr. Porter to visit with the children for two weeks during the summer and on certain holidays. After Mrs. Porter denied Mr. Porter summer visitation, Mr. Porter moved for a finding of contempt, and the trial court issued a contempt order requiring Mrs. Porter to pay a $1,000 sanction and to provide Mr. Porter with visitation later in the summer and at Thanksgiving. Mrs. Porter did not comply with court’s contempt order, Mr. Porter moved for another finding of contempt, and the trial court again found Mrs. Porter in contempt and ordered her to: (1) pay the $1,000 sanction, (2) pay $3,100 for Mr. Porter’s attorney’s fees, (3) provide Mr. Porter with visitation at Christmas, and (4) attend counseling. Mrs. Porter did not comply with the second contempt order, Mr. Porter moved for a third finding of contempt, and the trial court awarded Mr. Porter $4,100 in attorney’s fees and threatened Mrs. Porter with jail if she failed to pay and to provide visitation. Mrs. Porter appealed all three contempt orders, arguing that they were criminal in nature and that the trial court had not provided her with the required due-process protections.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Markey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.