MICHELLE KUFTA V JOSHUA HANLEY

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
MICHELLE KUFTA V JOSHUA HANLEY
Docket No. 381782
LC No. 2026-001458-DC
Kristina Robinson Garrett
Presiding Judge
Colleen A. O’Brien
Allie Greenleaf Maldonado
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, the
July 8, 2026 order denying plaintiff’s objection to the referee’s recommendation is VACATED and the
matter is remanded for the trial court to hold a de novo hearing under MCL 552.507 and MCR 3.215(F)(2).
The trial court committed clear legal error by denying plaintiff’s objection to the referee’s
recommendation without holding a live hearing. Because plaintiff timely filed objections to the referee’s
recommendation and asked for a de novo hearing, she was entitled to a live hearing at which she could
present evidence, subject to the trial court’s reasonable restrictions. Butters v Butters, 342 Mich App 460,
469; 995 NW2d 558 (2022), vacated in part on other grounds 510 Mich 1096 (2022). The fact that the
trial court did not believe that plaintiff identified any new evidence to present at a live hearing did not
allow the trial court to do away with a live hearing. Id. The trial court shall hold the de novo hearing
before it holds the custody hearing, which is currently scheduled for October 14, 2026. The trial court
shall hold the de novo hearing and the custody hearing within 21 days from the date of the Clerk’s
certification of this order.
In all other respects, the application is DENIED for failure to persuade the Court of the
need for immediate appellate review. This order does not preclude plaintiff from filing a motion for
transfer under MCR 3.212 once all matters pending before the trial court are resolved.
To the extent plaintiff seeks relief other than vacatur of the July 8, 2026 order and a remand
for a de novo hearing in the motion for peremptory reversal under MCR 7.211(C)(4), the motion is
DENIED for failure to persuade the Court of the existence of manifest error requiring reversal and
warranting peremptory relief without argument or formal submission.
The motion to remand is DENIED.
The motion to supplement pending application for leave to appeal, to add entered order
after hearing, and to amend or add grounds for review is DENIED.

-- 1 of 2 --

This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
October 12, 2026

-- 2 of 2 --