Divorce; Evidence about the legality of the marriage; Attempt to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim; Haller v Haller; Motion for reconsideration; Dispensing with oral argument; MCR 2.119(E)(3)

Noting that defendant-ex-husband could “not seek relief on the basis that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel[,]” the court also concluded that the trial court did not err in denying his motion for reconsideration or in dispensing with oral argument. Thus, it affirmed the divorce judgment. Defendant first asserted that the trial court erred in failing “to consider evidence that the parties were not legally married. But the trial court did not ignore defendant’s evidence without reason. It ruled that [he] was judicially estopped from challenging the legality of the marriage because, two years earlier, he had filed for divorce himself and alleged in his complaint that the parties were legally married.” As he did not challenge the imposition of judicial estoppel, the court found that he “failed to allege any actual error by the trial court.” As to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, pursuant to Haller, “a party in a divorce proceeding may not assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” The trial court treated his motion for reconsideration as a motion for a new trial. The motion was based “on his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.” Because he “could not raise such a claim in this civil proceeding” the trial court did not err in denying the motion. Further, under MCR 2.119(E)(3), “it had the discretion to dispense with oral argument on” the motion. Because the “claims in his motion failed as a matter of law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hear his arguments when he was not entitled to the relief sought in his motion.”