JULIENNE HANUSACK V DANIEL HANUSACK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JULIENNE HANUSACK,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
DANIEL HANUSACK,
No. 200023
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 93-305922 DM
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and McDonald and Doctoroff, JJ.
SMOLENSKI, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The trial court appeared to view this case as simply an unresolvable
swearing contest between defendant and plaintiff and that a further hearing would constitute “a total
waste of the Court’s time” because it would “provide absolutely no new insight into this case.” I
disagree. This case was not simply a swearing contest. There was strong circumstantial evidence
indicating that the account was a marital asset and that defendant concealed this asset. Moreover,
defendant’s apparently deceptive responses to interrogatories severely undercut his credibility.
Williams v Williams, 214 Mich App 391, 399; 542 NW2d 892 (1995). Thus, I believe that the truth
of fraud allegations could not be determined in this case without reference to defendant’s demeanor. Id.
Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an in-person
hearing in this case. Id. I would further hold that the court’s denial of the motion to set aside the
divorce judgment without such a hearing also constituted an abuse of discretion. Lopez v Lopez, 191
Mich App 427, 429; 478 NW2d 706 (1991). I would reverse and remand for an in-person hearing.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
