JAMES DEE SHINN V KELLIE MARIE SHINN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES DEE SHINN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 10, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 295483
Allegan Circuit Court
LC No. 07-042550-DM
KELLIE MARIE SHINN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: OWENS, P.J., and O’CONNELL and TALBOT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order awarding defendant physical custody of the parties’
minor child. We affirm.
Plaintiff initially asserts that the trial court committed misconduct by suppressing
relevant evidence. However, plaintiff’s brief on appeal is cursory and conclusory and fails to
adequately develop his argument or provide relevant record citations to identify the evidence
purportedly precluded by the trial court or to elucidate how such evidence was admissible
pursuant to the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff also fails to cite to any relevant legal
authority in support of his position. “An appellant may not merely announce his position and
leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues
cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.” Houghton v Keller, 256
Mich App 336, 339; 662 NW2d 854 (2003). Plaintiff’s failure to “properly address the merits of
his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issue.” Id. at 339-340. See also, Newton v
West, 262 Mich App 434, 437 n 2; 686 NW2d 491 (2004).
Plaintiff also contends that the trial court committed misconduct when it permitted
opposing counsel to view “evidences that [were] allegedly sealed, which were not viewed by
[plaintiff].” Plaintiff’s claim arises from a psychological report and letter that were sealed from
public inspection by the trial court. Contrary to his position on appeal, plaintiff agreed in the
trial court to the admission of the psychological report and letter into evidence and the provision
of copies to defendant’s counsel. When offered the opportunity to peruse these documents by
the trial court before their admission, plaintiff declined. Hence, the trial court’s indication that it
would seal the report and letter was only to preclude public access and was not intended to
restrict dissemination to the parties involved in this litigation. “A party is not allowed to assign
as error on appeal something which [he] . . . deemed proper at trial since to do so would permit
the party to harbor error as an appellate parachute.” Hilgendorf v St John Hosp, 245 Mich App
-1-
670, 683; 630 NW2d 356(2001), quoting Dresselhouse v Chrysler Corp, 177 Mich App 470,
477; 442 NW2d 705 (1989). Because plaintiff acquiesced to the admission of these documents
and their distribution to defendant, he cannot now assert error by the trial court. “Error requiring
reversal cannot be error to which the aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence.”
Phinney v Verbrugge, 222 Mich App 513, 537; 564 NW2d 532 (1997).
Finally, plaintiff contends that the trial court violated his and the minor child’s civil rights
when it “withheld proofs and evidences.” Once again, plaintiff fails to provide supporting
citations to the lower court record demonstrating any refusal by the trial court to admit evidence
that was in conformance with the Michigan Rules of Evidence or any applicable authority to
support his assertion that the trial court improperly excluded evidence. These failures constitute
an abandonment of this issue precluding our review. Houghton, 256 Mich App at 339-340.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
