Youse v. Youse

Michigan Court of Appeals

Youse v. Youse

186 N.W.2d 21, 30 Mich. App. 152, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2182

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1971

DocketDocket No. 8076

StatusPublished

This text of 186 N.W.2d 21 (Youse v. Youse) 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

Youse v. Youse, 186 N.W.2d 21, 30 Mich. App. 152, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At the conclusion of this contested divorce action, the trial judge made exhaustive written findings of fact which were the basis of his conclusion that defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff. The judgment of divorce awarded custody of the two minor children to plaintiff, required him to pay support for them when they were in the custody of defendant, divided the property about equally, and required plaintiff to pay an attorney fee to defendant’s attorney.

[153]*153Thereafter, defendant changed attorneys, moved for a new trial and a change of venue. This motion was denied and defendant appeals from that denial and from the judgment of divorce.

Our de novo review of this record does not convince us that we would have made findings different than those made by the trial judge had we sat in his place. Those findings are supported in the record and constitute a legal basis for the judgment entered below. This precludes a finding by this Court that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial and change of venue. Any further discussion of this case would be wholly academic and would serve no jurisprudential purpose.

Affirmed but without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

At the conclusion of this contested divorce action, the trial judge made exhaustive written findings of fact which were the basis of his conclusion that defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff. The judgment of divorce awarded custody of the two minor children to plaintiff, required him to pay support for them when they were in the custody of defendant, divided the property about equally, and required plaintiff to pay an attorney fee to defendant’s attorney.

[153]*153Thereafter, defendant changed attorneys, moved for a new trial and a change of venue. This motion was denied and defendant appeals from that denial and from the judgment of divorce.

Our de novo review of this record does not convince us that we would have made findings different than those made by the trial judge had we sat in his place. Those findings are supported in the record and constitute a legal basis for the judgment entered below. This precludes a finding by this Court that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial and change of venue. Any further discussion of this case would be wholly academic and would serve no jurisprudential purpose.

Affirmed but without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 21, 30 Mich. App. 152, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youse-v-youse-michctapp-1971.