? about attorney on record

[doc2b]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MI

Hopefully this question makes sense...

My husband's attorney filed a motion with the court, his ex's attorney responded in the given time and objected, but the court came back with a signed order from the judge granting the motion because the attorney who responded for his ex was not the attorney on record with the court (apparently she fired her attorney and didn't let him know, or didn't get the proper paperwork in). He's aware that she can go back and appeal this (or whatever you would call it).

The question is, this same attorney (the one that's not on record with the court) filed a motion earlier in the month with the court to change custody. Since this is not the attorney on record, is this motion not filed properly? Or can any attorney file a motion for a party, but only the attorney on record can respond?

My husband is just curious, and his attorney is in court or on vacation for the next few days, so I figured I'd ask you guys on here.

Thanks!

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MI

Hopefully this question makes sense...

My husband's attorney filed a motion with the court, his ex's attorney responded in the given time and objected, but the court came back with a signed order from the judge granting the motion because the attorney who responded for his ex was not the attorney on record with the court (apparently she fired her attorney and didn't let him know, or didn't get the proper paperwork in). He's aware that she can go back and appeal this (or whatever you would call it).

The question is, this same attorney (the one that's not on record with the court) filed a motion earlier in the month with the court to change custody. Since this is not the attorney on record, is this motion not filed properly? Or can any attorney file a motion for a party, but only the attorney on record can respond?

My husband is just curious, and his attorney is in court or on vacation for the next few days, so I figured I'd ask you guys on here.

Thanks!

I honestly don't think that I have ever seen that question asked before, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me logically.

People change attorneys all the time, its a commonplace thing. Therefore there are proceedures in place for a new attorney to enter their appearance.

It would almost seem like a violation of due process, to me, to throw out someone's response because it came from an attorney that for some reason or another wasn't showing as their attorney of record.

I also know specifically of MI cases where at the last minute, a substitute attorney (often an associate or collegue of the attorney of record) made an appearance for the attorney due to scheduling conflicts etc...which makes it even more confusing to me.

I definitely think that your husband needs to get clarification on the issue from his attorney.

 

[doc2b]

I honestly don't think that I have ever seen that question asked before, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me logically.

People change attorneys all the time, its a commonplace thing. Therefore there are proceedures in place for a new attorney to enter their appearance.

It would almost seem like a violation of due process, to me, to throw out someone's response because it came from an attorney that for some reason or another wasn't showing as their attorney of record.

I also know specifically of MI cases where at the last minute, a substitute attorney (often an associate or collegue of the attorney of record) made an appearance for the attorney due to scheduling conflicts etc...which makes it even more confusing to me.

I definitely think that your husband needs to get clarification on the issue from his attorney.

Believe me, it confused him and his attorney, too...the new attorney did not file the paperwork with the court stating she was representing his ex, and his ex's old attorney was never informed he had been let go, so he didn't file the paperwork releasing himself from the case. I guess it all came down to not following procedure. The new and old attorney were not colleagues or associates, though...don't know if that matters or not. Doesn't matter too much, anyway, since they have a date in court next month. Just figured I'd ask Thanks for the response!

 

[Ohiogal]

Was the case ever closed and then the "new" attorney entered a motion?

 

[doc2b]

Was the case ever closed and then the "new" attorney entered a motion?

I don't think it had been closed...I guess I don't know what that means.

If it helps explain things, my husband reopened the FOC case earlier this year (pro se). At that point his ex retained her attorney for the first hearing. My husband retained his attorney for the second hearing, and all of the sudden (in the middle of negotiations), his ex has a new attorney handling her case without notice to my husband's attorney (not that she has to give notice, but they were working together drafting an order), and apparently without notice to the court.

 

[doc2b]

Got the question answered

Apparently, in Michigan (don't know about other states) an attorney on record is the one who must file both motions and responses for a client...until they are released from the case by filing the proper paperwork with the court (and the new attorney must notify the court of their involvement, as well). The clerk caught the mistake on the response that was filed by the ex's attorney, but whoever handled the paperwork for the motion that was filed by the new attorney did not see that this attorney was different from that on the original record. My husband's attorney said that the motion could be contested, but that the court date would just be pushed back a few weeks to get everything straightened out, so no big deal.

This is going to be a jam packed court date, since it's addressing the motions filed by both parties...I just wish it wasn't so close to my due date-It makes me nervous having my DH so far away a few days before baby#2 is due

Anyway, just thought I'd put this on here in case anyone ever had the same question

 

[Isis1]

This is going to be a jam packed court date, since it's addressing the motions filed by both parties...I just wish it wasn't so close to my due date-It makes me nervous having my DH so far away a few days before baby#2 is due

Anyway, just thought I'd put this on here in case anyone ever had the same question

thanks for the follow up. i was reading along, had nothing to offer. but that sounds about right.

when hubby leaves, don't move.

 

[doc2b]

thanks for the follow up. i was reading along, had nothing to offer. but that sounds about right.

when hubby leaves, don't move.

Eh...I wish it were that simple...he's leaving me with the 15 mo. old little guy and I will likely have his kiddos here for those couple of days (doesn't make sense to fly them out for a day and a half trip when both mom and dad will be in court). Plus still unpacking from the move...I'm in big trouble I think I may just start throwing away boxes before I open them...that way, I'll never know what I'm missing.

 

[Isis1]

Eh...I wish it were that simple...he's leaving me with the 15 mo. old little guy and I will likely have his kiddos here for those couple of days (doesn't make sense to fly them out for a day and a half trip when both mom and dad will be in court). Plus still unpacking from the move...I'm in big trouble I think I may just start throwing away boxes before I open them...that way, I'll never know what I'm missing.

omg. maybe it will be better to have the baby BEFORE he leaves? jumping jacks? riding a bike over train tracks?

 

[Rushia]

omg. maybe it will be better to have the baby BEFORE he leaves? jumping jacks? riding a bike over train tracks?

LOL, or she could try to just keep squeezing her legs together and telling the baby "NOT YET!"

 

[doc2b]

omg. maybe it will be better to have the baby BEFORE he leaves? jumping jacks? riding a bike over train tracks?

I'm torn, really...this place isn't baby ready yet, but I'm not feeling like being huge and uncomfortable anymore. I'm just hoping this one doesn't go way over like my last one-that was miserable (although, it was during Michigan winter-not Georgia summer-so I"m sure it was a lot more manageable).

And...jumping jacks? I can barely lift up my leg to put my pants on thanks to my cankles and loosey-goosey joints

 

[Isis1]

I'm torn, really...this place isn't baby ready yet, but I'm not feeling like being huge and uncomfortable anymore. I'm just hoping this one doesn't go way over like my last one-that was miserable (although, it was during Michigan winter-not Georgia summer-so I"m sure it was a lot more manageable).

And...jumping jacks? I can barely lift up my leg to put my pants on thanks to my cankles and loosey-goosey joints

oh good gosh darn it....i so forgot about those loose joints. great. now i'm having flashbacks. if i get mood swings by the time my husband gets home from work, it's all YOUR fault!!!

 

[doc2b]

oh good gosh darn it....i so forgot about those loose joints. great. now i'm having flashbacks. if i get mood swings by the time my husband gets home from work, it's all YOUR fault!!!

Haha Sorry about the reminder...I haven't gone long enough in between babies to forget how I start feeling like I have Barbie joints at around 4mos along. You go right ahead and blame any current or future mood swings on me (that goes for everyone else, too). I'll just hope i don't ever have to explain it to your families

 

[doc2b]

Update

Apparently, my husband's ex and her attorney have been aware (for a week and a half) of the signed order stating that he gets the kids for the month of August while waiting for the next hearing (that way they both get half of the summer)...new attorney somehow managed (just today) to go get an emergency hearing date for next week on the grounds that she didn't think it was fair that the order was signed by the judge due to her not filing procedure.
According to mom's attorney's secretary, mom was going to keep kiddos until the emergency hearing (4 days after dad is supposed to get them for the month), and dad's attorney let her know that he was entitled to 7 days notice, and he was already scheduled in court on a different matter the day the emergency hearing was scheduled. He also told her to get ahold of mom and let her know to have kiddos ready for dad to pick them up in the morning unless she wanted to explain herself at a show cause hearing. So, dad is getting the kiddos tomorrow, coming back to Georgia for some quality family time, and everybody is going to go from there. Dad's attorney doesn't think that the judge will order the kids back to Michigan after the emergency hearing since mom has already gotten them for half of the summer (she just wants the whole thing, plus is requesting full custody at the Change of Domicile hearing). We'll see what happens-all I know is it'll be great to see them and have them spend some time with their baby brother (who misses them like crazy).

I want to know what on earth justified granting an emergency hearing for mom in all this? Seems really weird to me, especially since mom has had the kiddos for a month straight and dad just wants some time with them, too...I don't get it.

 

[LdiJ]

Apparently, my husband's ex and her attorney have been aware (for a week and a half) of the signed order stating that he gets the kids for the month of August while waiting for the next hearing (that way they both get half of the summer)...new attorney somehow managed (just today) to go get an emergency hearing date for next week on the grounds that she didn't think it was fair that the order was signed by the judge due to her not filing procedure.
According to mom's attorney's secretary, mom was going to keep kiddos until the emergency hearing (4 days after dad is supposed to get them for the month), and dad's attorney let her know that he was entitled to 7 days notice, and he was already scheduled in court on a different matter the day the emergency hearing was scheduled. He also told her to get ahold of mom and let her know to have kiddos ready for dad to pick them up in the morning unless she wanted to explain herself at a show cause hearing. So, dad is getting the kiddos tomorrow, coming back to Georgia for some quality family time, and everybody is going to go from there. Dad's attorney doesn't think that the judge will order the kids back to Michigan after the emergency hearing since mom has already gotten them for half of the summer (she just wants the whole thing, plus is requesting full custody at the Change of Domicile hearing). We'll see what happens-all I know is it'll be great to see them and have them spend some time with their baby brother (who misses them like crazy).

I want to know what on earth justified granting an emergency hearing for mom in all this? Seems really weird to me, especially since mom has had the kiddos for a month straight and dad just wants some time with them, too...I don't get it.

I would say its a due process issue. The judged signed something without mom getting to be heard because mom's attorney apparently made a mistake.

The judge has to give mom's attorney the opportunity to argue that mom shouldn't be punished for the attorney's mistake...and dad's attorney will have the opportunity to argue the reverse.