michael j malik vs brooke a malik - answer to complaint

5/8/2018 Michael J Malik vs Brooke A Malik - Answer to Complaint

1/8

STATE OF MICHIGANOAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

MICHAEL JAMES MALIK, SR.,Plaintiff,

VS.JU DG E JO AN E. YOUNGBROOKE ANNE MALIK, MAL IKMICHAEL v MAL IK ,BROOKE,

Defendant.------------------------~/ SEYBURN, KAHN,GllfN, BESS

and SERLIN, P.C.Henry M. Nirenberg (P36847)Tova Shaban (P38392)Attorneys for Defendant2000 Town Center, Suite 1500Southfield, MI 48075(248) 353-7620

FLOOD, LANCTOT, CONNER& STABLEIN, P.L.L.C.David G. Gorcyca (P41352)Attorney for Plaintiff401 N. Main St.Royal Oak, MI 48067(248) 547-1032EISENBERG & SPILMAN, P.C.Laura E. Eisenberg (P45463)Attorney for Plaintiff26555 Evergreen, Suite 1120Southfield, MI 48076(248) 358-8880

-0::E::~~[ r- o: 1 a~I

U1

------------------------~/DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR AN ANNULMENT,

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE,AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCEDefendant, Brooke Anne Malik ("Ms. Malik"), by her attorneys, Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn,

Bess and Serlin, P .C., states the following as her Answer to Verified Complaint for an

Annulment, or, in the Alternative, Verified Complaint for Divorce, Affirmative Defenses andCounter-Complaint for Divorce:

1. Admit.2. Admit.

l00411082.DOq

.-. y : - : :,:';: -;:;0;-'0;""


2/8

3. Admit, except Ms. Malik states her name Anne has been misspelled in thisparagraph and in the caption. In further response, Ms. Malik states she wishes to keep her lastname.

4. Denied as untrue.5. Denied as untrue.6. Ms. Malik admits only that Plaintiff demanded she and her minor son vacate the

home, but she denies the remaining allegations as untrue.7. Denied as untrue.8. Admit9. Admit.10. a. Ms. Malik denies Cameron resides with Plaintiff at 100 Townsend as

Defendant spent only one night there (March 11) since her attorney was served with thecomplaint. In further response, Ms. Malik admits the remaining allegations as true.

b. Admit the allegation only as to the dates February 2010 until April 1,2010.

c. Admit and Ms. Malik further states she and the minor child also resided ina home in Troy during the time period stated.

d. Admit.e. Admit.f. Admit.

11. No response is necessary as the paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extenta response is necessary, Ms. Malik denies the allegations as untrue and denies annulment isproper in this case.

12. Admit.

(00411082.00C) 2


3/8

13. Ms. Malik neither admits nor denies the amount of money spent by Plaintiff fortheir wedding being without specific information upon which to form a belief as to the truththereof. Ms. Malik denies the remaining allegations as untrue.

14. The allegations are denied as untrue as to Plaintiff. In further response, Ms.Malik states it would be in the best interest of the three year old, Cameron, to award jointcustody to her and Plaintiff, with physical custody to her, given the age of the boy and the factthat Plaintiff constantly travels for business and is out of town a significant amount of time.

15. Ms. Malik denies that there was any attachment to the Complaint although sheadmits the last page of the Complaint is purportedly signed by Plaintiff.

16. Denied as untrue. In further response, Ms. Malik states she is only partiallyemployed at this time due to the demands made upon her by Plaintiff and that as a result she hassuffered a substantial loss of income. In addition, Plaintiff has been supporting Ms. Malik forthe entire seven (7) years of their relationship and once their son was born, he contributedadditional monies towards child support.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Malik requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be denied as requested andaward her a Judgment of Divorce in accordance with her counter-claim.

Respectfully submitted,SEYBURN, KAHN, GINN, BESSAND SERLI ,P.C.

y M. Nirenberg (P36847)Tova Shaban (P38392)Attorneys for Defendant2000 Town Center, Suite 1500Southfield, Michigan 48075(248) 353-7620ate: April 1, 2010

{00411082.DOC} 3


4/8

,, , ......., ,..,, ,, ,, ---fti.~~/~2'ii_~~:i~~~~_i~~~}

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSESDefendant, Brooke Anne Malik ("Ms. Malik"), through her attorneys, Seyburn, Kahn,

Ginn, Bess and Serlin, P.C., states the following as her Affirmative and Other Defenses toPlaintiffs Verified Complaint for an Annulment, or, in the Alternative, Verified Complaint forDivorce:

1. Plaintiffs Complaint for annulment fails to state a claim upon which relief can begranted.

2. The jewelry and other personalty given to Ms. Malik by Plaintiff are gifts and arenot reimbursable or otherwise recoverable.

3. Plaintiff has failed to properly and adequately litigate his damages regarding hisalleged expenses.

4. Plaintiffs claims are barred by his affirmative breach of contract.5. Plaintiff engaged in subversive and fraudulent behavior during their marriage.6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff continued to engage in relationships with

other women during the marriage.7. Ms. Malik reserves the right to add, modify, or delete her affirmative and other

defenses that may become known through the course of discovery or otherwise.Respectfully submitted,

Date: April 1, 2010

SEYBURN, KAHN, GINN, BESSA N D ; ; ;ERLI ,P.C., i [,_-------~-By: ~ ___Henry M. Nirenberg (P36847)Tova Shaban (P38392)Attorneys for Defendant2000 Town Center, Suite 1500Southfield, Michigan 48075(248) 353-7620

-

I00411082.DOC} 4


5/8

DEFENDANT'S COUNTER-COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCEDefendant, Brooke Anne Malik ("Ms. Malik" or "Counter-Plaintiff'), by her attorneys,

Seybum, Kahn, Ginn, Bess and Serlin, P.C., states the following as her Counter-Complaintagainst Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant ("Counter-Defendant") for Divorce:

1. The parties have been residents of Michigan for at least 180 days and of OaklandCounty for at least 10 days immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

2. The parties were legally married in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 21, 2010.3. The parties have one minor child, Cameron Anthony Malik, born on November

27,2006.4. Ms. Malik is not pregnant.5. During the marriage, the parties have acquired property, including a home in

Birmingham, Michigan that is fully furnished and a condominium on the west side of Manhattan,New York, both of which were paid for in cash, which is to be divided.

6. Counter-Plaintiffs complete name before this marriage was Brooke AnneGarwood and is now Brooke Anne Malik. Counter-Defendant's complete name before thismarriage was Michael James Malik, Sr. and is currently Michael James Malik, Sr.

7. Since the marriage, Counter-Defendant has been unfaithful to Counter-Plaintiff.Upon information and belief, he has continued to see other women and to purchase cars andprovide monetary and other gifts to other women.

8. Counter-Defendant also seeks to ruin Counter-Plaintiffs reputation and is makingstatements about Counter-Plaintiff that are untrue. Counter-Defendant has also sought tointimidate Counter-Plaintiff with threats and other actions.

9. There is a substantial inequality between the parties given Counter-Defendant'spolitical and business connections, wealth and status in the community.

l00411082.DOCI 5


6/8

10. Counter-Plaintiff requires support for herself and her minor child, includingspousal support, child support related maintenance, health care and expenses for the home andautomobile. Counter-Plaintiff also requires assistance with her attorney fees and the costs of thiscase since she is unable to pay these expenses without aid.

11. As a result of the marriage, and the time demands placed upon her by Counter-Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff reduced her hours to part-time. Consequently, her income has beensubstantially diminished and she currently earns about one-third of what she earned prior to herengagement to Counter-Defendant. In addition, Counter-Defendant has substantial assets andsupported Counter-Plaintiff during their entire relationship to the present (approximately seven(7) years), and her minor son prior to the birth of the child to the present, including providing anallowance for home, household expenses, child care expenses, child support and support forCounter-Plaintiff, all before the marriage.

12. During the pendency of this action, Counter-Defendant invaded Counter-Plaintiffs privacy and trespassed in the room designated to her and Cameron as their privatespace in the marital home which agreement was placed on the record in open court onWednesday, March 24, 2010, in direct violation of the parties' agreement. In addition, Counter-Defendant made threats to Counter-Plaintiff. As a result of these threats, trespass and violationof Counter-Plaintiffs privacy, and the taking of Counter-Plaintiffs personal effects andpossessions, including breaking into her car and removing her personal papers and dictaphonewhich included recordings covered under the attorney-client privilege, Counter-Plaintiff wasforced from the home with her son and had to spend an evening in a hotel.

13, Temporary restraining orders are necessary to obligate Counter-Defendant tocontinue the status quo and to pay for all ordinary and necessary expenses relating to the maritalhome and relating to Counter-Plaintiffs residence to be acquired and/or hotel, the parties' minor

(00411082.DOC) 6


7/8

ii.64/ii/i~.ii~i~~~~.1}~~8_ _

child, including child care, the Counter-Plaintiffs credit card charges, health insurance, expensesassociated with the automobiles and an allowance for Counter-Plaintiff.

14. There has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that theobjects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that themarriage can be preserved.

WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiff requests that the Court:1. grant a judgment of divorce;2. order agreed on spousal support or order Counter-Defendant to pay spousal

support for Counter-Plaintiff;3. order Counter-Defendant to pay Counter-Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs;4. issue an injunction to continue the status quo and to pay for all ordinary and

necessary expenses relating to the marital home and Counter-Plaintiffs residence to be acquiredand/or hotel, the parties' minor child, including child care, the Counter-Plaintiffs credit cardcharges, health insurance, expenses associated with the automobiles and an allowance forCounter-Plaintiff;

5. restrain Counter-Defendant from allowing insurance to lapse or be canceled orfrom changing the beneficiary designation of life insurance policies;

6. restrain Counter-Defendant from entering Counter-Plaintiffs private spacedesignated as the middle bedroom and/or her automobile, and restrained from taking any ofCounter-Plaintiffs personal effects or belongings;

7. enter an agreed order that the property be equitably divided;8. award joint custody of the minor child to the parties with physical custody to the

Counter-Plaintiff;9. enter an order allowing Counter-Plaintiff to keep all jewelry and other personalty

given to her by Counter- Defendant;(00411082.DOC) 7


8/8

10. deny Counter-Defendant's request for restitution and for damages, and11. grant any other relief that the Court determines is equitable in this case.

Respectfully submitted,SEYBURN, KAHN, GINN, BESSANDSE

Date: April 1,2010

He y~. Nirenberg (P36847)T a Shaban (P38392)Attorneys for Defendant2000 Town Center, Suite 1500Southfield, Michigan 48075(248) 353-7620

(00411082.DOC} 8

michael j malik vs brooke a malik - answer to complaint

Documents

malik states

malik answer

malik requests

youngbrooke anne malik

malik forthe entire

michael j malik vs brooke

plaintiffs complaint

verified complaint fordivorce