Sommerville v. Sommerville

2 Citing cases

  1. Board of Trustees v. Duncan

    468 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)

    See Public School Employees' Retirement Bd v Wexford Circuit Judge, 39 Mich. App. 568; 197 N.W.2d 854 (1972). Although MCL 38.559; MSA 5.3375(9) was subsequently amended to allow pensions to be distributed as marital assets, the amendment only applies to judgments of divorce awarded on or after June 13, 1985. Sommerville v Sommerville, 164 Mich. App. 681, 688; 417 N.W.2d 574 (1987). It is correct, as Betty urges, that in 1979 courts could take pension benefits into account when disposing of marital assets.

  2. Fortune v. Crime Victims Bd.

    426 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

    A statutory amendment is generally presumed to operate prospectively, unless the Legislature either expressly or impliedly indicates an intention for retroactivity or unless the amendment is remedial or procedural in nature. Allstate Ins Co v Faulhaber, 157 Mich. App. 164, 166-167; 403 N.W.2d 527 (1987); Sommerville v Sommerville, 164 Mich. App. 681, 687-688; 417 N.W.2d 574 (1987). In the present case, the amendment makes a material alteration in the statute by limiting the substantive — not merely the procedural — rights of claimant and her minor children.