Peabson v. Pearson

Michigan Court of Appeals

Peabson v. Pearson

188 N.W.2d 165, 32 Mich. App. 294

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9428

StatusPublished

This text of 188 N.W.2d 165 (Peabson v. Pearson) 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

Peabson v. Pearson, 188 N.W.2d 165, 32 Mich. App. 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and other relief. Plaintiff cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment [295]*295relating to the payment of arrearage in support money which accumulated while the action was pending in circuit court.

Defendant first contends that the testimonial record fails to establish jurisdiction. In this he is correct. However, exhibits offered and received in evidence establish jurisdiction.

Defendant contends that the alleged grounds for divorce were not proved. Our de novo review of the record does not support defendant’s contention, nor will that review support a finding by this Court that the trial judge abused his discretion with respect to support payments.

AfSrmed, with costs to plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and other relief. Plaintiff cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment [295]*295relating to the payment of arrearage in support money which accumulated while the action was pending in circuit court.

Defendant first contends that the testimonial record fails to establish jurisdiction. In this he is correct. However, exhibits offered and received in evidence establish jurisdiction.

Defendant contends that the alleged grounds for divorce were not proved. Our de novo review of the record does not support defendant’s contention, nor will that review support a finding by this Court that the trial judge abused his discretion with respect to support payments.

AfSrmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 N.W.2d 165, 32 Mich. App. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peabson-v-pearson-michctapp-1971.