In this case, the facts of the divorce are relatively straightforward. Plaintiff and defendant married in June 2007, shortly after which defendant gave birth to the couple’s child. Both parties testified at trial to a marriage characterized by mutual physical and verbal abuse, and each party testified that the other spent too much money on his or her respective vice. Plaintiff filed for divorce in August 2014; at the time, he was 56 years old and defendant was 48 years old. The following month, the trial court entered an order requiring plaintiff to pay for the marital home mortgage, taxes and utilities, his car note, and credit card indebtedness, and defendant to pay for her car note, child care costs and her individual needs; the parties were to share the cost of groceries.
Plaintiff and defendant continued to live in their house until December 2014, when plaintiff moved out following a domestic violence incident. In response to defendant’s motions for temporary support, the trial court entered an order in March 2015 requiring plaintiff to pay defendant $1,100 a month.
Plaintiff raises some issues with regard to spousal support.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in extending the status quo beyond entry of the JOD. Pursuant to MCR 3.207(C)(5), a temporary order remains in effect until modified or until the entry of the final judgment or order. Prior to entry of the final version of the JOD, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court, among other things, to continue the temporary support order until sale of the marital house and to delay the onset of plaintiff’s child and spousal support obligations accordingly. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and incorporated this request into the JOD. Thus, the JOD either modified the temporary support order by extending it until the closing on the sale of the marital home and delaying the onset of plaintiff’s support obligations accordingly.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for 14 months’ credit against his spousal support obligation, arguing that the court should not penalize him for defendant’s role in extending the proceedings beyond what was reasonably necessary by bringing a third party into the suit on baseless fraud and conspiracy claims. We agree that defendant played no small part in extending the divorce proceedings. However, the argument overlooks plaintiff’s role in expanding the scope, duration, and expense of the trial by claiming that he and defendant owed the third party $300,000 pursuant to a promissory note that clearly obligated plaintiff alone.
Are you facing a divorce in Michigan? Do you have questions about how your assets and your debts will be divided with your soon-to-be ex-spouse?
At the Plymouth and Ann Arbor law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys understand the struggles you may face. We will work hard to help you obtain all to which you are entitled during your divorce.