matter for an evidentiary hearing in Michigan

2023To the extent that defendant requests that this Court remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing to further develop defendant’s claims, remand is not warranted if a defendant fails to demonstrate that further factual development will advance his position, see People v McMillan, 213 Mich App 134, 141-142 ; 539 NW2d 553 (1995), or if a defendant fails to identify facts that could provide a basis for relief, see People v Simmons, 140 Mich App 681, 685 ; 364 NW2d 783 (1985).

2023To the extent that defendant requests that this Court remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing to further develop defendant’s claims, remand is not warranted if a defendant fails to demonstrate that further factual development will advance his position, see People v McMillan, 213 Mich App 134, 141-142 ; 539 NW2d 553 (1995), or if a defendant fails to identify facts that could provide a basis for relief, see People v Simmons, 140 Mich App 681, 685 ; 364 NW2d 783 (1985).

2017When a trial court is faced with a request to change child custody, it must first determine whether the proponent of the change has “established a change of circumstances or proper cause for a custodial change under MCL 722.27(1)(c).” Kubicki v Sharpe, 306 Mich App 525 , 539- 540; 858 NW2d 57 (2014).

2017When a trial court is faced with a request to change child custody, it must first determine whether the proponent of the change has “established a change of circumstances or proper cause for a custodial change under MCL 722.27(1)(c).” Kubicki v Sharpe, 306 Mich App 525 , 539- 540; 858 NW2d 57 (2014).

2017While the trial court may be correct that defendant could have submitted this additional evidence in his original motion, and while it is the general rule in civil litigation that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration that rests “on a legal theory and facts which could have been pled or argued prior to the trial court’s original order,” Charbeneau v Wayne Co Gen Hospital, 158 Mich App 730, 733 ; 405 NW2d 151 (1987), this general principle must yield to the primary goal of child custody proceedings, the best interests of the child.

2017While the trial court may be correct that defendant could have submitted this additional evidence in his original motion, and while it is the general rule in civil litigation that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration that rests “on a legal theory and facts which could have been pled or argued prior to the trial court’s original order,” Charbeneau v Wayne Co Gen Hospital, 158 Mich App 730, 733 ; 405 NW2d 151 (1987), this general principle must yield to the primary goal of child custody proceedings, the best interests of the child.

2021Southwestern has failed to provide any legal authority entitling it to this relief. “[T]he recovery of costs advanced by an attorney to a client under a fee agreement is governed by contract law.” Estate of Kalisek by Kalisek v Durfee, 322 Mich App 142, 149 ; 910 NW2d 717 (2017).

2021Southwestern has failed to provide any legal authority entitling it to this relief. “[T]he recovery of costs advanced by an attorney to a client under a fee agreement is governed by contract law.” Estate of Kalisek by Kalisek v Durfee, 322 Mich App 142, 149 ; 910 NW2d 717 (2017).

2016People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 59 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2016People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 59 ; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).

2015But because Townsend has not submitted any affidavits from witnesses who could provide information supporting Townsend’s claim that counsel was observed sleeping during trial and has not explained how counsel performed deficiently, he has not established the factual predicate of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Hoag, 460 Mich at 6 , or that remand for an evidentiary hearing is warranted.

2015However, we conclude that the record is sufficient to evaluate this argument. -4- guilty, defendant “opened the door to a full and not just selective development of that subject.” People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98, 103 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993) (citation omitted).

2015However, we conclude that the record is sufficient to evaluate this argument. -4- guilty, defendant “opened the door to a full and not just selective development of that subject.” People v Allen, 201 Mich App 98, 103 ; 505 NW2d 869 (1993) (citation omitted).

2015Id. at 659 .

2008Our caselaw does not offer a wealth of guidance about the trial court’s inquiry with regard to a conflict *472 of interest, but our Supreme Court has held that, in order to disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office, a court must consider “the extent to which knowledge has been shared by the disqualified lawyer and the disqualified lawyer’s role within the prosecutor’s office.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369-370 ; 589 NW2d 763 (1999), citing Doyle, supra at 644-647 . 3 We further hold, as a majority of other jurisdictions have held, that, under these circumstances, in order “to ensure faith in

2008Our caselaw does not offer a wealth of guidance about the trial court’s inquiry with regard to a conflict *472 of interest, but our Supreme Court has held that, in order to disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office, a court must consider “the extent to which knowledge has been shared by the disqualified lawyer and the disqualified lawyer’s role within the prosecutor’s office.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369-370 ; 589 NW2d 763 (1999), citing Doyle, supra at 644-647 . 3 We further hold, as a majority of other jurisdictions have held, that, under these circumstances, in order “to ensure faith in

2008Our caselaw does not offer a wealth of guidance about the trial court’s inquiry with regard to a conflict *472 of interest, but our Supreme Court has held that, in order to disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office, a court must consider “the extent to which knowledge has been shared by the disqualified lawyer and the disqualified lawyer’s role within the prosecutor’s office.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369-370 ; 589 NW2d 763 (1999), citing Doyle, supra at 644-647 . 3 We further hold, as a majority of other jurisdictions have held, that, under these circumstances, in order “to ensure faith in

2008Our caselaw does not offer a wealth of guidance about the trial court’s inquiry with regard to a conflict *472 of interest, but our Supreme Court has held that, in order to disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office, a court must consider “the extent to which knowledge has been shared by the disqualified lawyer and the disqualified lawyer’s role within the prosecutor’s office.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369-370 ; 589 NW2d 763 (1999), citing Doyle, supra at 644-647 . 3 We further hold, as a majority of other jurisdictions have held, that, under these circumstances, in order “to ensure faith in

1998As our Supreme Court stated in Sokel v Nickoli, 356 Mich 460, 464 ; 97 NW2d 1 (1959): “The power of the lower court on remand is to take such action as law and justice may require so long as it is not inconsistent with the judgment of the appellate court.” We further note that if plaintiff needed clarification of or disagreed with this Court’s order remanding the matter for an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff should have sought rehearing or leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

1998As our Supreme Court stated in Sokel v Nickoli, 356 Mich 460, 464 ; 97 NW2d 1 (1959): “The power of the lower court on remand is to take such action as law and justice may require so long as it is not inconsistent with the judgment of the appellate court.” We further note that if plaintiff needed clarification of or disagreed with this Court’s order remanding the matter for an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff should have sought rehearing or leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

1998Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 218 Mich App 351, 356 ; 554 NW2d 43 (1996); Toska v Campbell, 155 Mich App 671, 674 ; 400 NW2d 617 (1986). in Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.

1998Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 218 Mich App 351, 356 ; 554 NW2d 43 (1996); Toska v Campbell, 155 Mich App 671, 674 ; 400 NW2d 617 (1986). in Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.

1998Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 218 Mich App 351, 356 ; 554 NW2d 43 (1996); Toska v Campbell, 155 Mich App 671, 674 ; 400 NW2d 617 (1986). in Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.

1998Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 218 Mich App 351, 356 ; 554 NW2d 43 (1996); Toska v Campbell, 155 Mich App 671, 674 ; 400 NW2d 617 (1986). in Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.

1981At that hearing, the trial judge should determine whether (1) the juror’s status as a witness deprived him of his ability to act impartially in the case at bar; (2) defendant could have successfully *205 challenged the juror for cause; or (3) defendant would have 'otherwise’ dismissed the juror by exercising a peremptory challenge had the truth been revealed.” People v Larry Smith, 106 Mich App 203, 213 ; 307 NW2d 441 (1981).

1981At that hearing, the trial judge should determine whether (1) the juror’s status as a witness deprived him of his ability to act impartially in the case at bar; (2) defendant could have successfully *205 challenged the juror for cause; or (3) defendant would have 'otherwise’ dismissed the juror by exercising a peremptory challenge had the truth been revealed.” People v Larry Smith, 106 Mich App 203, 213 ; 307 NW2d 441 (1981).