Allegations of inadequate legal representation in a divorce case have led to a civil lawsuit seeking damages for legal malpractice and related claims. The complaint was filed by Kindra Garner on April 14, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Wayne F. Crowe Jr., his associated law firms—The Law Firm of Wayne F. Crowe Jr., PLLC (doing business as Wealthy Street Legal and Brookhills Legal Services), Brookhills Payroll LLC, Cascade Legal Services PLLC, and Wealthy Street Law Firm PLLC—and names them jointly and severally as defendants.
According to the filing, Garner retained Crowe and his entities on or about February 28, 2024, to represent her interests during divorce proceedings initiated by her ex-husband in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The complaint outlines that despite public statements made by Crowe regarding his commitment to aggressive family law representation—such as “No attorney will fight harder to represent you than me” and assurances that clients can “rely on us for sound guidance and caring representation”—Garner alleges she experienced persistent neglect throughout her case.
The background provided in the court document states that after marital difficulties arose, Garner moved from Michigan to Florida around June 2023 due to health concerns and financial hardship. When her husband filed for divorce in November 2023 after an 8.5-year marriage, Garner depended on Social Security Disability benefits and support from friends for living expenses. She claims she relied heavily on the defendants’ advertised professionalism because of her health issues, financial situation, and distance from Michigan.
Garner alleges that the defendants failed to maintain contact with her or respond to inquiries about her case status or required documentation. The complaint asserts that essential documents—including an appraisal of the marital home and medical records relating to Garner’s disability—were never requested or submitted by the defense team. As a result, only one exhibit was presented at trial despite repeated offers from Garner to provide additional materials.
The lawsuit highlights specific consequences stemming from these alleged omissions: “The spousal support amount and Garner’s share of the marital estate were improperly influenced by this failure.” At trial on June 28, 2025, it is claimed that an attorney sent by Crowe admitted seeing Garner’s file for the first time on the morning of trial. According to court filings, this left Garner underrepresented; she ultimately received $14,000 in equity from a home valued at over $340,000 according to Zillow estimates cited in the complaint (with appreciation allegedly underestimated), half of a retirement account (401(k)), and $300 per month in spousal support for two years.
Garner contends these outcomes were grossly inadequate given her role as a stay-at-home mother during much of the marriage and ongoing inability to work due to disability: “As a direct consequence of Defendant’s conduct,” she writes through counsel, “Garner was deprived of her rightful share.”
In addition to detailing events specific to her own case, Garner’s filing references disciplinary actions taken against defendant Crowe: suspension of his New York law license in February 2022 due to professional misconduct—including neglecting legal matters—and subsequent reciprocal suspension in Michigan effective February 12, 2025. The document states that despite being required by order to notify clients about his suspension via registered mail per Michigan Court Rule 9.119(E), “Garner was not notified,” while Crowe continued consulting with clients during his suspension period.
The complaint also points out negative online reviews concerning Crowe’s firms’ services—citing a Google Reviews rating averaging 2.2 stars—and notes another pending malpractice suit involving similar allegations against Crowe within the same district (Case No. 1:26-cv-00413).
Garner brings five counts against all defendants: legal malpractice; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; fraudulent misrepresentation/inducement based on public statements about service quality; and statutory conversion under Michigan Compiled Laws §600.2919a regarding retention of unearned fees paid for services allegedly not performed or performed inadequately.
For relief, Garner requests actual damages reflecting lost value from division of marital assets and spousal support; disgorgement and recovery of all unearned legal fees paid; treble damages pursuant to state statute for property conversion; non-economic damages including mental anguish; exemplary damages for alleged willful conduct; reasonable attorneys’ fees; interest on all awarded damages; plus any further relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys Robert Anthony Alvarez (P66954) and Juan Antonio Salazar-Aguero (P86234) from Avanti Law Group represent Kindra Garner in this matter under Case No. 1:26-cv-01214.
Source: 126cv01214_Kindra_Garner_v_Wayne_Crowe_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
