§

Rogers v. Rogers

335 Mich. 207 (Mich. 1952)
Rogers v. Rogers

5 Citing cases

  1. Mixon v. Mixon

    237 Mich. App. 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    In Mixon v Mixon, 237 Mich App 159, 162; 602 NW2d 406 (1999), this Court reversed and remanded to the trial court a judgment of divorce where the plaintiff/father's request for joint custody was denied without the trial court having stated its reasons on the record.

    A trial court's decision to re-open proofs to modify a divorce judgment is reviewed to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rogers v. Rogers, 335 Mich. 207, 209-210; 55 N.W.2d 799 (1952); Esslinger v. Esslinger, 9 Mich. App. 11, 16; 155 N.W.2d 702 (1967). An abuse of discretion occurs when the result is so grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment or the exercise of passion or bias.

  2. Brown v. Brown

    335 Mich. 511 (Mich. 1953)   Cited 8 times

    The liability imposed upon the husband, in the light of the circumstances of this case, for medical expenses and insurance is in keeping with the established rule. See Cooley v. Cooley, 320 Mich. 209, and Rogers v. Rogers, 335 Mich. 207, decided December 9, 1952. An unusually large number of questions is presented in this appeal, but we do not deem it necessary to further answer the contentions of the parties.

  3. Van Ommen v. Van Ommen

    25 Mich. App. 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 6 times

    The amount of child support set by the court is dependent upon the proofs, not allegations, and is required by statute to be just and reasonable, having regard to the ability of the husband and the character and situation of the parties, and all other circumstances of the case. Rogers v. Rogers (1952), 335 Mich. 207. MCLA § 552.23 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 25.103).

  4. Hoffman v. Hoffman

    158 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    While an appellate court hears divorce cases de novo, it does not reverse the trial court unless convinced that it must have reached a different conclusion had it occupied the position of the trial court under like circumstances. Rogers v. Rogers (1952), 335 Mich. 207, 211. All of the cases cited by both plaintiff and defendant express one main theme.

  5. Esslinger v. Esslinger

    9 Mich. App. 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 7 times
    In Esslinger v Esslinger, 9 Mich. App. 11, 21; 155 N.W.2d 702 (1967), this Court found interest on a $30,000 share of property could be used to determine a wife's need for alimony.

    Both parties on appeal acknowledge that the reopening of the proofs in the original case lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Rogers v. Rogers (1952), 335 Mich. 207. We find in examining the record that this discretion was not abused by the trial court as the case was tried fully and completely only five weeks before, with appellant being given every opportunity to introduce her proofs.