Saturday, April 14, 2018

Can a woman inherit from her husband if they hadn't lived together for 30 years?

Our Michigan Supreme Court listened to oral arguments this last week for a Saginaw woman who is claiming her deceased husbands estate, even though they lived apart for 30 years.

You can find the article here:

https://www.apnews.com/5c65a17b3270452181510627b053d900/Woman-who-didn't-live-with-late-husband-seeks-inheritance

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Ding Dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch...


Governor Snyder signs bills to end driver responsibility fees, effective on Oct. 1, 2018
This last week, Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation that ends the dreaded driver responsibility fees and wipes out $637 million in debt owed by nearly 350,000 drivers.  These fees have been attributed by numerous judges throughout the state as "creating a new class of criminals" for those that can't pay them.

Those Driver responsibility fees, ranging from $100 to $2,000, were passed in 2003 to create revenue for the state of Michigan. The fees were charged on top of tickets issued to drivers for everything from multiple speeding tickets, driving with a suspended license, to drunk driving.

Here are the specifics: 
No new driver responsibility fees will be issued and any outstanding debt will be wiped out beginning Oct. 1, 2018.
Drivers who have a CURRENT installment payment plan to pay off their driver responsibility fees and are current with those payments can have their remaining debt wiped out immediately and apply to have their licenses reinstated.
Drivers who aren't on payment plans, or aren't current, can get their licenses reinstated after Oct. 1 and will have the $125 reinstatement fee waived if they apply before Dec. 31, 2018.
If a driver's license has been suspended for four or more years, the driver must successfully complete a written test at the Secretary of State's office and a road skills driving test that is administered by a third party and costs roughly $50.  It is (and will be) a requirement to show pieces of identification revealing the driver has a Social Security number and is a resident of Michigan.
Any other driving fees, such as failure to appear in court on a traffic violation or driving on a suspended license, must be paid before a license can be reinstated.
The Secretary of State has a help line,  888-767-6424, and provides information on the state's website, www.michigan.gov/sos.  The Treasury Department has a help line @517-636-5240 to help drivers learn about the driver responsibility fee changes.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Update: Michigan's Sex Offender Registry opinion out of the Michigan Supreme Court

Earlier this month, the Michigan Supreme Court opinion came out on the case of People v. Temelkoski.  That case was supposed to address the constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry and how changes to that registry over the years were applied RETROACTIVELY to persons already serving out or have served out their criminal sentences. 

We had hoped that the court would have opined that increased requirements levied by changes to the law were in fact "punishment" and not just a "civil disability"  (note:  The Federal 6th circuit court of appeals ruled last year that the changes to the law were in fact punishment).  If our court had determined that the increased requirements were punishment, those requirements, if levied on current SORA registrants, would be declared unconstitutional under the EX-POST FACTO clause of our US and Michigan Constitutions.

Unfortunately, the court issued a very narrow opinion, focused only on whether Temelkoski should be required to register under SORA because he was sentenced under a "deferral" program known as HYTA.  The court provided that Temelkoski should have been protected under HYTA and not required to register under SORA.

The court did NOT address whether SORA requirements were punishment or just a civil disability, and in fact referred to SORA as being a civil disability.  After I listened again to the oral arguments from last fall, I believe that the Mich Supreme Court will probably NOT issue an order that addresses whether SORA is a “civil disability” or a “criminal punishment", and the current SORA will remain in Michigan until another case or cases challenges the Michigan law.
 



Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Update: Michigan Supreme Court and the Sex Offender Registry Act


UPDATE on the Constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act as of December, 2017.

The Michigan Supreme court heard the 2nd set of oral arguments in People v Boban Temelkoski on October 11, 2017.  As of this update, the court has not tendered its decision.

You can read all about the parties and their positions here:  http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2017-2018/Pages/150643.aspx

Perhaps the biggest unknown, and the most significant impact, may be on the current Tier 3 offenders, who where put on the registry, under a "listed offense" prior to the 2011 amendment.  Prior to that amendment, they were required to register for 25yrs. After the amendment, all old and new offenders were put into tiers, and Tier 3s were required to register for life.  If the Michigan Supreme Court determines that part of the amendment as unconstitutional, it may revert those Tier 3 offenders, who were already registered prior to the 2011 amendment, back to their old registration requirements (25 years vs. Life registration).

 

Monday, October 23, 2017

MI lawmakers seek amnesty for past due Drivers Responsibility Fees



Lawmakers pursue amnesty program worth over $600 million for drivers who owe drivers responsibility fees.

A bipartisan package will be introduced Thursday that would grant full amnesty to more than 300,000 motorists who owe the state Driver Responsibility Fees, wiping out the debt completely on Oct. 1, 2018.

You can read the full article at :  http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20170928/news/640406/lawmakers-pursue-amnesty-program-worth-634-million-for-drivers-who-owe

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Still waiting on the Michigan Supreme Court decision on SORA punitive grandfathering

UPDATE on the Constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act as of December, 2017.

The Michigan Supreme court heard the 2nd set of oral arguments in People v Boban Temelkoski on October 11, 2017.  As of this update, the court has not tendered its decision.

You can read all about the parties and their positions here:  http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2017-2018/Pages/150643.aspx

Perhaps the biggest unknown, and the most significant impact, may be on the current Tier 3 offenders, who where put on the registry, under a "listed offense" prior to the 2011 amendment.  Prior to that amendment, they were required to register for 25yrs. After the amendment, all old and new offenders were put into tiers, and Tier 3s were required to register for life.  If the Michigan Supreme Court determines that part of the amendment as unconstitutional, it may revert those Tier 3 offenders, who were already registered prior to the 2011 amendment, to revert back to their old registration requirements (25 years vs. Life registration).


****************************************************


UPDATE on the Constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act.
 
On 12/07/2016, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case of 

People v Boban Temelkoski.  As of this writing (June 3rd, 2017) we have not seen a decision out of the Michigan Supreme Court on this matter.  If you are interested, you can listen to the actual oral arguments at this link: 


http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Documents/2015-2016/150643/150643%20Audio.mp3

 
 
As a review, you can read my prior blogpost (reposted below).
 
*********************************

Court Decisions may overturn parts of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry
 
SUMMARY of SORA:  When SORA was enacted in 1994, it was a private database for law enforcement use only that had no regular reporting requirements. This served the state’s purposes adequately for more than a decade. The registry became public in 2004, geographic exclusion zones (1,000 foot rule) were added in 2006; sweeping additional restrictions, reporting requirements, and tier classifications took effect in 2011.
 
There have been numerous challenges to SORA since the 2006 and 2011 amendments, culminating most recently with a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision and an ongoing case that will be heard early in 2017 before the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to determine whether (1) SORA requirements constitute punishment, (2) whether SORA is punishment as applied to an individual who successfully completes HYTA, (3) whether sufficient due process is afforded by the SORA statutory definition of “conviction” to include HYTA matters, (4) if SORA is not punishment, does the Act nevertheless violate due process, (5) is there an ex post facto violation where subsequent requirements such as the public registry are applied to individuals already on the registry, and (6) is there cruel and/or unusual punishment under SORA? People v Temelkoski, 498 Mich 942; 872 NW2d 219 (12/18/15).


In August of 2016, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the changes to the SORA (Sex Offenders Registration Act) imposed primarily in the 2006 and 2011 amendments were indeed "punishment" and therefore violated the ex-post facto clause of our U.S. Constitution.  This means that enforcement of those additional restrictions on those who were already convicted of their "crimes" prior to the amendments, is unconstitutional.
 
However, not to be outdone, the Michigan Attorney General has filed an appeal.  
 
6 SEPT, filing by the State of MICHIGAN:

 "The State seeks a panel rehearing to correct an error of law and to bring to this Court's attention a prior published and on-point opinion by this Court," the Sept. 8 filing states, claiming the court's opinion is in conflict with the 2007 case, Doe v. Bredesen.

The court held in that case that "continuous GPS monitoring and retroactive reclassification of an offender as a 'violent sexual offender' were not punitive and thus did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, using reasoning that is in strong tension with and in places contradicts this Court's August 25 opinion," the Sept. 8 filing reads.

So, the big question is: what to do next?  Michigan cannot enforce a law that it knows to be unconstitutional. The court's decision theoretically applies to all registrants who were convicted before SORA was amended to become more restrictive.  If you are subject to a locally enforced restriction, such as the 1,000 foot rule, get a written memo from your local city attorney stating that they will not enforce that rule against your client.  Could one succeed with a 6.500 motion for relief in state court?  A Federal Habeas Petition?  Or do we wait for a pending case in Michigan?  We may not have to wait too long.  The Michigan Supreme court has granted leave in People v. Temelkoski*  (docket # 150643) with one of the issues whether the SORA violates Ex-Post Facto prohibitions of the Michigan Constitution.  I believe, ultimately, we will languish until the Michigan Supreme Court decides Temelkoski and hopefully declares the retroactive provisions of Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.  Although Temelkoski is not yet on the court's calendar for oral arguments, the parties' briefs and an amicus brief by CDAM can be found at http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/clerks/pages/cases-awaiting-argument.aspx

 
CHANGES WITH 2006 AMENDMENT TO SORA

• criminalized working, living, or loitering within 1000 feet of school

CHANGES WITH 2011 AMENDMENT TO SORA

• created SORA 3-tier system
• retroactively extended registration to life for Tier III registrants
• offense pre-dating registry results in registration if convicted of any new felony
    (“recapture” provision)
• in-person reporting for vast amount of information like internet identifiers
• “immediate” reporting for minor changes like travel plans & changes to email accounts

As the law stood prior to the amendment in July, 2011, any person convicted of a listed offense was required to register as a sex offender for 25 years as a first offender and for life as a repeat offender. There were no "tiers".

OLD LAW:  "LISTED OFFENSES" FOR SORA:  Listed Offenses range from a conviction for disorderly person with indecent or obscene conduct up to and including Criminal Sexual Conduct in the first degree (rape), Kidnapping a minor, and Creating Child Abusive Material (child pornography). While the Offender Detail on the website indicates the particular offense the individual was convicted of, all offenders are treated the same and listed together in the same list. When observing a list of offenders in a particular geographic area, there is no differentiation between a repeat child molester and a person who was convicted of indecent exposure (streaking).

 NEW TIERS established by the July, 2011 amendment to SORA:

A Tier 1 Offender is a person who commits one of the following offenses (including attempts and conspiracy to commit the offense):

•Possession of Child Abusive Material (child pornography)
•Aggravated Indecent Exposure toward a minor
•Unlawful Imprisonment of a minor
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th Degree and Criminal Sexual Assault of an adult
•Stalking of a minor

Tier 1 Offenders must register 1 time per year for 15 years following their conviction or release from jail or prison.

A Tier 2 Offender is a person who commits a second Tier 1 Offense, or a person who commits one of the following offenses (including attempts and conspiracy to commit the offense):

•Accosting or Soliciting a minor (1st or 2nd offense)
•Creation or Distribution of Child Abusive Material (child pornography)
•Use of a Computer in a Sexual Felony
•Sodomy unless •The victim was between 13 and 16 years of age and consented to the act with an individual not 4 years older than the victim; or
•The victim was 16 or 17 years of age and consented to the act with an individual who was not in his or her household or a position of custodial authority at the time.
•Gross Indecency unless one of the above exceptions applies
•Solicitation of Prostitution or Immoral Act of a minor
•Pandering
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree or 4th Degree, or Criminal Sexual Assault of a minor over 13 years of age
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree of an adult

Tier 2 Offenders must register 2 times per year for 25 years following their conviction or release from jail or prison.

Tier 3 Offender is a person who commits another listed offense after being required to register as a Tier 2 Offender, or a person who commits one of the following offenses (including attempts and conspiracy to commit the offense):

•Gross Indecency with a minor under 13
•Kidnapping of a minor
•Parental Kidnapping
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree or 3rd Degree, or Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault unless the victim was between 13 and 16 years of age and consented to the act with an individual not 4 years older than the victim
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree or Criminal Sexual Assault against a minor less than 13 years of age
•Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th Degree committed by a person age 17 or older against a minor less than 13 years of age

Tier 3 Offenders must register 4 times per year for life.

Since July 2011, Sex Offenders have been Required to Provide More Information

Prior to July 2011 sex offenders were required to report their:

Name, Social security number, Birth date, Address, Their Physical description; A Photograph, and their Fingerprints.

However, since  July 1, 2011, individuals who are required to register have to provide additional information and reporting:

• Any residence where they will be for more than 7 days;
• Employers;
• Schools where they are enrolled;
• Telephone number;
• Email address and instant message IDs;
• License plate, registration, and description of any motor vehicle they "regularly use";
• Drivers License Number (or state identification card number);
• Copies of any passports or immigration documents;
• Professional licenses; and
• Palm prints.

Prior to July 2011, a sex offender must register changes in residence within 10 days of changing that residence.  However with the new changes in July 2011, that individual must report within 3 days a change of most of the required reporting information.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Michigan joins 15 other states in allowing Domestic Asset Protection Trusts


Governor Snyder has signed into law two bills (effective on March 8, 2017) that now allow a DAPT (Domestic Asset Protection Trust) to be created in Michigan.  Public Act 330 establishes the Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act. Public Act 331, which amends the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, complements Public Act 330. Together, the two laws combine to give Michigan residents another tool for protecting their assets from creditors including tort claimants.
 
If a Michigan DAPT is properly drafted as an irrevocable trust, it can hold a Settlor’s assets, provide the Settlor with accessibility to those assets as a beneficiary and give the Settlor a limited voice on certain decisions, all while protecting the assets from the Settlor’s future creditors. The new law provides that the Settlor’s creditors may not reach assets transferred to the Michigan DAPT after a two year "statute of limitations" starting when the assets are transferred to the trust, and only with very limited exceptions such as a showing of a fraudulent transfer.

The Michigan DAPT is an extremely powerful tool for both estate planning and asset protection.

You can find the statute starting here: 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(h1wohgmcx4pmuek3smgzzpjl))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-700-1041-new