DAVID JAMES LAFOREST V KIM IRENE LAFOREST
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID JAMES LAFOREST,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 224890
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
LC No. 99-018914-DO
KIM IRENE LAFOREST,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right this judgment of divorce. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court entered a default against plaintiff when he failed to appear for a mandated
final settlement conference. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in failing to find that he was
not culpably negligent because he could not secure a return flight from Arizona to attend the
conference. MCR 2.401(G)(2)(b). Plaintiff was aware of the conference, and he failed to make
the necessary arrangements to return in time to attend. The trial court did not clearly err in
finding that his failure to attend was due to culpable negligence. MCR 2.613(C); Beason v
Beason, 435 Mich 791; 460 NW2d 207 (1990).
Plaintiff asserts that the trial court did not obtain sufficient testimony to resolve the
property dispute. Plaintiff has failed to preserve this claim because his counsel left the
courtroom, rather than participate in creating a record to support the divorce. Tringali v Lal, 164
Mich App 299, 306; 416 NW2d 117 (1987). The trial court relied on the parties’ settlement
offers, which differed by only a small amount. There is no evidence that the disposition was
inequitable. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 152; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).
The trial court acted within its power in entering a judgment of divorce even though
defendant had not filed a counter-complaint. MCR 2.601(A) provides that “every final judgment
may grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party
has not demanded that relief in his or her pleadings.” The parties were well aware of all the
issues to be tried, and no additional notice was necessary. MCR 2.603(B)(1)(d).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
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.
