KERRY LYNNE WHALEN V JAMES WHALEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KERRY LYNNE WHALEN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 4, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 208724
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 92-172177 DM
JAMES WHALEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
AFTER REMAND
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Griffin and Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Previously, in Whalen v Whalen, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals,
issued 5/23/97 (Docket No. 193098), this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the
lower court. We did not retain jurisdiction.
Thereafter, in response to plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court modified
our judgment in the following respect:
The Court of Appeals shall retain jurisdiction while this case is on remand to the
trial court. The Court of Appeals shall direct the trial court to state concisely its
assessment of the evidence and findings of fact that bear upon the issues of custody,
visitation, division of marital property, alimony, and child support. The Court of
Appeals shall impose appropriate time constraints on the trial court for filing the
statement of its findings of fact and conclusions of law. As soon as the trial court’s
statement of its findings of fact and conclusions of law is received, the Court of Appeals
shall proceed to decide the plaintiff’s appeal from the trial judge’s rulings on the issues
of custody, visitation, division of marital property, alimony, and child support.
In all other respects, plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal was denied.
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive, the matter was remanded to the circuit court
for findings of fact while this Court retained jurisdiction. Findings of fact after trial were thereafter filed
by the circuit court on June 10, 1998.
-1
After thorough review of the circuit court’s findings of fact after trial and the plaintiff’s
supplemental brief, we hold that the findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, Beason v Beason, 435
Mich 791; 460 NW2d 207 (1990), and the dispositional rulings are fair and equitable. Sparks v
Sparks, 440 Mich 141; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). The judgment of the lower court is therefore
affirmed.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.
