Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his request for a change of custody concerning his minor children. The appeal centered on the trial court's failure to conduct a de novo hearing despite the defendant's written objections to the referee's report. Under M.C.L. 552.507(5), a de novo hearing is mandated upon a party's written request, whereas MCR 3.215(E)(3)(b) allows for a hearing based on the referee's record if objections are timely filed. The appellate court found that the defendant's objections, filed within the 21-day requirement, were sufficient to trigger the court's duty to hold a de novo hearing. Consequently, the trial court's order was vacated and the case remanded for a full hearing, rectifying what was identified as a clear legal error. The appellate court also addressed the issue of judicial assignment on remand, deciding against appointing a different judge due to the absence of evidence suggesting bias or prejudice. The appellate ruling did not retain jurisdiction, and any procedural deficiencies regarding notice of hearing were waived as the plaintiff did not raise the issue.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judge Assignment on Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined to mandate a different judge on remand, citing insufficient evidence of bias or prejudice.
Reasoning: The request for a different judge on remand was denied due to a lack of evidence indicating bias or prejudice from the presiding judge.
Judicial Hearing Based on Referee's Record under MCR 3.215(E)(3)(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's use of the referee's record without a full de novo hearing was found to be a legal error since the defendant's objections were timely filed.
Reasoning: The court rejected these arguments, affirming that the statute and court rules clearly require a hearing de novo when timely written objections are filed.
Requirement for De Novo Hearing under M.C.L. 552.507(5)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the statute mandates a de novo hearing upon a written request from either party, and the defendant's written objections were sufficient to trigger this requirement.
Reasoning: The statute mandates a de novo hearing upon written request from either party, while MCR 3.215(E)(3)(b) allows for a judicial hearing based on the referee's record if objections are filed within 21 days.
Vacating and Remanding Due to Legal Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for a full hearing due to the failure to conduct a de novo hearing, as required by statute and court rules.
Reasoning: The appellate court vacates the trial court's order and remands the case for further proceedings but does not require a different judge to hear the case.