Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

JEREMIAH VINCENT ORIEDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v LYDIA NYABUL-ORIEDO, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED April 22, 2010

No. 288432 Midland Circuit Court LC No. 07-002417-DO

BEFORE: SAAD, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and MURRAY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jeremiah Vincent Oriedo appeals from a judgment of divorce that divided the marital estate on a 60/40 basis in favor of defendant. We affirm.

I. BIGAMY Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to address his claim that defendant was already married to someone else when the parties were married in Texas in 1994, and by denying his post-trial motion for relief from the trial court's findings on the basis of this issue. We disagree. A trial court's decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kernen v Homestead Dev Co, 252 Mich App 689, 691; 653 NW2d 634 (2002). A trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. South Macomb Disposal Auth v American Ins Co, 243 Mich App 647, 655; 625 NW2d 40 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's decision is outside the range of "reasonable and principled outcome[s]." Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). A trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing in every instance. Bielawski v Bielawski, 137 Mich App 587, 592; 358 NW2d 383 (1984). In deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, "a court should first determine whether there exists contested factual questions that must be resolved." Id. Where there are no "meaningful contested factual questions that would require a hearing," an evidentiary hearing is not required. Id. at 592-593.

-1-

Though a bigamous marriage is void in both Michigan and in Texas, see MCL 552.1; Texas Fam Code Ann,

Download JEREMIAH VINCENT ORIEDO V LYDIA NYABUL-ORIEDO.pdf

Michigan Law