P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum

Michigan Court of Appeals

P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum

DecidedMarch 16, 2023

Docket361167

StatusUnpublished

This text of P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum (P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum, (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ADAOBI ONYEJEKWULUM, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 361167 Oakland Circuit Court EMEKA ONYEJEKWULUM, LC No. 2019-877692-DM

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and RIORDAN and YATES, JJ.

MURRAY, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In the approximately three and a half pages of argument contained in plaintiff’s brief on appeal, she posits two arguments: (1) that the trial court lacked the authority to decide defendant’s motion to allocate child tax credits, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting oral argument on the motion. I concur in the majority’s resolution of the second issue, as oral argument is not required to be held on motions, see MCR 2.119(E)(3) and City of Westland v Kodlowski, 298 Mich App 647, 662; 828 NW2d 67 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 495 Mich 871 (2013). With respect to the first issue, I concur that the trial court did not err in addressing defendant’s motion. However, I would go no further in the analysis. Plaintiff, who has counsel on appeal, has not primed the appellate pump with any argument, case law or statute relative to the substance of the trial court’s decision, and we should not make the argument for him. Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). I would affirm.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

-1-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ADAOBI ONYEJEKWULUM, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 361167 Oakland Circuit Court EMEKA ONYEJEKWULUM, LC No. 2019-877692-DM

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and RIORDAN and YATES, JJ.

MURRAY, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In the approximately three and a half pages of argument contained in plaintiff’s brief on appeal, she posits two arguments: (1) that the trial court lacked the authority to decide defendant’s motion to allocate child tax credits, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting oral argument on the motion. I concur in the majority’s resolution of the second issue, as oral argument is not required to be held on motions, see MCR 2.119(E)(3) and City of Westland v Kodlowski, 298 Mich App 647, 662; 828 NW2d 67 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 495 Mich 871 (2013). With respect to the first issue, I concur that the trial court did not err in addressing defendant’s motion. However, I would go no further in the analysis. Plaintiff, who has counsel on appeal, has not primed the appellate pump with any argument, case law or statute relative to the substance of the trial court’s decision, and we should not make the argument for him. Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). I would affirm.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

P Adaobi Onyejekwulum v. Emeka Onyejekwulum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-adaobi-onyejekwulum-v-emeka-onyejekwulum-michctapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack