8/14/2019 Powery v Wells

1/5

CHRISTINA LYN POWERY, f/k/a CHRISTINA LYN WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vJOHN BRADEN WELLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 280622

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

278 Mich. App. 526; 752 N.W.2d 47; 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 720

April 8, 2008, Decided

NOTICE:

THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFOREPUBLICATION IN THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS.

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]Mason Circuit Court, Family Division. LC No. 04-000326-DM.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a child custody dispute, plaintiff mother appealedfrom the Mason Circuit Court, Family Division (Michigan), an order holding that theresidence of the parties' minor child not be changed to a different city, that was within100 miles of the child's current residence, and granting defendant father weeklyphysical custody of the child during the school year in the event that the mother chose

to stay in her new location.

OVERVIEW: After finding that an established custodial environment existed withboth parties, the trial court considered whether the proposed alteration to parentingtime necessitated by the proposed move amounted to a change in the custodialenvironment. If the mother moved, either she or the father would be relegated to therole of a weekend parent. Conversely, when both parties lived in the same city, theywere equally active in the child's life. Because any modification of parenting timeamounted to a change in the custodial environment, a best interest analysis wasrequired. Thus, the trial court properly held an evidentiary hearing. The same analysisresolved the mother's claim that the trial court erred in requiring her to prove that the

move was in the child's best interest, which the mother failed to do. Although a bestinterest finding was not explicitly spelled out, it was easily and clearly drawn from thetrial court's written opinion. In sum, the trial court found that the continuity ofremaining in the same city was preferable to the uncertainty of a move and thatcustody with the father was in the child's best interests, so long as the mother chose tostay in her new location.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

8/14/2019 Powery v Wells

2/5

CORE TERMS: custodial, child's best interest, custody, modification, parenting, clearand convincing evidence, custody orders, weekly, physical custody, school year,evidentiary hearing, best interest, best-interest, daughter, weekend, custody arrangement,change of circumstances, legal error, parenting-time, necessitated, disrupted, enjoyed

LexisNexis Headnotes Hide Headnotes

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Abuse of DiscretionCivil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Clearly Erroneous ReviewFamily Law > Child Custody > General OverviewHN1 All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless a trial court's findings were

against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse ofdiscretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue. Clear legal erroroccurs when a trial court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.

Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Clear & Convincing ProofFamily Law > Child Custody > Awards > Standards > Best Interests of ChildFamily Law > Child Custody > Modification > Changed CircumstancesHN2 A party that seeks a change in custody has the initial burden to establish, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that either proper cause or a change ofcircumstances exists to warrant a change in custody. MCL 722.27(1)( c).Thereafter, the trial court may then determine whether an established custodialenvironment exists and analyze the best interest factors set forth inMCL 722.23.If the court finds that an established custodial environment exists, it may not

change the established custodial environment unless it finds, by clear andconvincing evidence, that a change in custody is in the child's best interest. MCL722.27(1)( c).

Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Clear & Convincing ProofFamily Law > Child Custody > Awards > Standards > Best Interests of ChildFamily Law > Child Custody > Modification > Changed CircumstancesHN3 If a requested modification in parenting time amounts to a change in the

established custodial environment, it should not be granted unless the trial court ispersuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the change would be in the bestinterest of the child.

Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Clear & Convincing ProofFamily Law > Child Custody > Awards > Physical Custody > Joint Physical CustodyFamily Law > Child Custody > Modification > General OverviewHN4 Where there is a joint established custodial environment, neither parent's custody

may be disrupted absent clear and convincing evidence.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clsccl4http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clsccl3http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clsccl2http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clsccl1http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USA

8/14/2019 Powery v Wells

3/5

Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Clear & Convincing ProofFamily Law > Child Custody > Awards > Standards > Best Interests of ChildFamily Law > Child Custody > Modification > General OverviewHN5 A trial court may not modify an existing custody order absent a finding based on

clear and convincing evidence that such a change was in the child's best interest.

COUNSEL: Thomas C. Kates for the plaintiff. Holland.

Jeffrey C. Nellis for the defendant. Ludington.

JUDGES: Before: Wilder, P.J., Saad, C.J., and Smolenski, J.

OPINION BY: Henry William Saad

OPINION

[**49] [*527] SAAD, C.J.

In this child-custody dispute, plaintiff Cynthia Lyn Powery appeals from the trial court'sorder directing that the residence of the parties' minor child not be changed to TraverseCity and granting defendant John Braden Wells weekly physical custody of the childduring the school year in the event that plaintiff chose to remain in Traverse City. Weaffirm.

Plaintiff says that the trial court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing because her movefrom Ludington to Traverse City was less than 100 miles and, therefore, was insufficient toconstitute a change of circumstances warranting an evidentiary hearing on the best-interest

factors ofMCL 722.27(1)(c). We disagree. HN1 "[A]ll custody orders must be affirmedon appeal unless the trial court's findings were against the great weight of the evidence, thecourt committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on amajor issue." Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 194; 704 NW2d 104 (2005). Clearlegal error occurs when a trial court "incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies [***2] thelaw." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

HN2 A party that seeks a change in custody has the initial burden of establishing, by apreponderance of the evidence, that either proper cause or a change of circumstances existsto warrant a change in custody. MCL 722.27(1 )( c);Vodvarka v Grasmeyer , 259 Mich App

499, [*528] 509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). Thereafter, the trial court then determineswhether an established custodial environment exists and analyze the best-interest factorsset forth in MCL 722.23. Id. If the court finds that an established custodial environmentexists, it may not change the established custodial environment unless it finds clear andconvincing evidence that a change in custody is in the child's best interest.MCL722.27(1)( c). See also Dumm v Brodbeck , 276 Mich App 460, 462; 740 NW2d 751(2007).

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=267%20Mich.%20App.%20188,%20194&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clscc2http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clscc1http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clsccl5http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=267%20Mich.%20App.%20188,%20194&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=267%20Mich.%20App.%20188,%20194&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=267%20Mich.%20App.%20188,%20194&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=259%20Mich.%20App.%20499,%20509&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.27&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=276%20Mich.%20App.%20460,%20462&countryCode=USA

8/14/2019 Powery v Wells

4/5

Plaintiff argues that her proposed move only requires a modification of parenting time.

However,HN3 "if a requested modification in parenting time amounts to a change in theestablished custodial environment, it should not be granted unless the trial court ispersuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the change would be in the best interestof the child." [**50] Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576, 595; 680 NW2d 432 (2004).

[***3] Plaintiff does not challenge the trial court's finding that an established custodialenvironment existed with both parties. After making this determination, the trial courtconsidered whether the proposed alteration to the parenting-time schedule necessitated bythe proposed move amounted to a change in the established custodial environment.Id. at595-596. Here, the evidence presented at the motion hearing showed that if plaintiff movedto Traverse City, either she or defendant would be relegated to the role of a "weekend"parent. Conversely, when both parties lived in Ludington, they were equally active in theirdaughter's life. Because any modification of "parenting time" based on this move wouldamount to a change in the established custodial environment, an "analysis under the bestinterest factor framework" was required. Id. Therefore, the trial court properly held anevidentiary hearing.

[*529] This same analysis also resolves plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred byplacing on the plaintiff the burden proving that the move to Traverse City is in the child'sbest interest. Although defendant filed the motion to change custody after plaintiff told himthat she planned to [***4] make the move to Traverse City, plaintiff also requested amodification of the existing parenting-time arrangement based on her move to TraverseCity. The trial court properly found that plaintiff's move to Traverse City would change theestablished custodial environment. Thus, it could not grant the modification without firstdetermining whether clear and convincing evidence indicated that the change was in thebest interest of the child. Brown, supra at 595. Because plaintiff made the move toTraverse City, which necessitated the attendant modification of parenting time, she had theburden of establishing that the existing custody arrangement should be disrupted. Id.HN4

"Where there is a joint established custodial environment, neither parent's custody maybe disrupted absent clear and convincing evidence." Sinicropi v Mazurek , 273 Mich App149, 178; 729 NW2d 256 (2006), citing Foskett v Foskett , 247 Mich App 1, 8; 634 NW2d363 (2001) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff also maintains that the trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion for achange in custody after determining that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof.However, because the child had an established custodial environment [***5] with bothparents, plaintiff had the burden of showing that her proposed modification of the custodyarrangement (specifically, moving her daughter to Traverse City) was in the child's bestinterest.

However, plaintiff does not address this issue in her argument on appeal. Instead, herargument focuses on [*530] which party is best situated to do the traveling necessary tomaintain the roughly equal amount of parenting time previously enjoyed by both parties.Plaintiff asserts that because defendant has a flexible work schedule, he should bear theburden of driving to Traverse City to visit the child in order to assure that any disruption tothe amount of parenting time enjoyed by each party would be minimized. In other words,plaintiff's argument assumes, but does not prove, the legitimacy of her move to TraverseCity. Moreover, plaintiff's argument spotlights testimony by a psychologist that the movewould have an adverse effect on the child because it could disrupt the parties' time with

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clscc4http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clscc3http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=260%20Mich.%20App.%20576,%20595&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=247%20Mich.%20App.%201,%208&countryCode=USA

8/14/2019 Powery v Wells

5/5

their daughter. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to establish that the move was in the child'sbest interest.

The trial court modified the existing custody order by awarding weekly [**51] physicalcustody to defendant [***6] during the school year in the event plaintiff chose to remain

in Traverse City. However, HN5 the trial court may not modify an existing custody orderabsent clear and convincing evidence that such a change is in the child's best interest.Sinicropi , supra at 178. We acknowledge that the trial court failed to include a concise,explicit statement that modifying the custody order to grant defendant weekly physicalcustody during the school year was in the child's best interest. Nonetheless, such a findingcan easily and clearly be drawn from the trial court's written opinion. The trial court foundthat plaintiff's move to Traverse City constituted a change in the child's establishedcustodial environment, because the parties would be unable to continue their arrangementof nearly equal parenting time. Consequently, there are only two possible outcomes ofplaintiff's move, namely, plaintiff as weekend parent or defendant as weekend parent. Thetrial court expressly found that removing the child to Traverse City, where [*531] shewould lose the regular mid-week contact with defendant, "does not promote Kaylie's best

interests." Logically, this means that of the two available [***7] choices, weekly custodywith defendant was the option that was in the child's best interest. Furthermore, the trialcourt found that two of the best-interests factors enumerated in the statute favoreddefendant over plaintiff, and that the remainder were inapplicable or equal for the parties,with none of the factors favoring plaintiff. Factor 1, MCL 722.23(l) any other factor thatthe court considers relevant, also weighed in defendant's favor. Clearly, the trial courtfound that the continuity of remaining in Ludington was preferable to the uncertainty of amove to Traverse City. These findings constitute an unmistakable finding that custody withdefendant was in the child's best interest, so long as plaintiff chose to remain in TraverseCity.

Affirmed.

/s/ Henry William Saad

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder

/s/ Michael R. Smolenski

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docview#clscc5http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.624387.8650129349&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1230853990154&returnToKey=20_T5454446791&parent=docviewhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=273%20Mich.%20App.%20149,%20178&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5454444517&homeCsi=7783&A=0.46873028544050155&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=MICH.%20COMP.%20LAWS%20722.23&countryCode=USA