202 Mich. App. 61 - Bonfiglio v. Pring’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “for Marcella Staple and thus it is modifiable pursuant to statute. V. Bonfiglio Bonfiglio, however, compels the opposite result. In Bonfiglio , the panel noted that a conflict existed in the pre-1990 decisions of this Court regarding whether contingency provisions for the termination of alimony upon death or remarriage make the alimony amount unascertainable and thus modifiable periodic alimony. Citing Hall for the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Mich. App. 805 - Staple v. Staple

2. “approach, the Bonfiglio panel stated that this approach distinguish[es] periodic alimony from alimony in gross and conclude[s] that if the alimony provision contains a contingency for termination in the event of the death of the recipient, then the alimony is deemed to be periodic alimony, which is subject to modification. [ Bonfiglio, supra at 63-64 , 507 N.W.2d 759 .] [3] The Bonfiglio panel contrasted this”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Mich. App. 805 - Staple v. Staple

3. “[ Bonfiglio holds] that the inclusion of a survivor or remarriage contingency in an alimony provision does not automatically or conclusively create modifiable alimony, the court should focus on the intentions of the parties in negotiating a settlement agreement and give effect to that intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Mich. App. 805 - Staple v. Staple