Blog

DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in October 1995. At the time of their divorce in 2018, plaintiff was 58 years old, and defendant was 65 years old. The parties have two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce. Plaintiff quit her job as a nurse when she married defendant in 1995. Until the parties divorced, plaintiff was solely responsible for raising the children, including homeschooling both children. Plaintiff was also solely responsible for taking care of the parties’ domestic affairs while defendant worked as a millwright for an automobile company.

At age 49, defendant was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiff cared for defendant until his lymphoma went into remission. Defendant returned to work for a brief period, but later decided to take an early retirement. At the time of their divorce, the parties were living solely on defendant’s pension and Social Security payments, which totaled approximately $3,200 per month.

Plaintiff sought a divorce based on abusive behavior exhibited toward her by defendant over the course of their marriage. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in March 2017, and the parties’ divorce was finalized in June 2018.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by failing to clearly state whether the spousal support award was periodic or in gross, and, in either event, by failing to award plaintiff permanent spousal support. The trial court did err by failing to articulate whether it intended to award periodic spousal support or spousal support in gross, and the trial court did not properly consider applicable facts and law pertaining to whether plaintiff should have been awarded permanent spousal support.

The object of a spousal support award is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties in a way that will not impoverish either party. The trial court may award either periodic spousal support or spousal support in gross. As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is nonmodifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.

There are several factors to be considered by the trial court when awarding spousal support. These factors include: (1) the past relations and conduct of the parties, (2) the length of the marriage, (3) the abilities of the parties to work, (4) the source and amount of property awarded to the parties, (5) the parties’ ages, (6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony, (7) the present situation of the parties, (8) the needs of the parties, (9) the parties’ health, (10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is responsible for the support of others, (11) contributions of the parties to the joint estate, (12) a party’s fault in causing the divorce, (13) the effect of cohabitation on a party’s financial status, and (14) general principles of equity.

The trial court is not required to make findings regarding every factor but should make specific factual findings regarding the factors that are relevant to the case. In plaintiff’s case, the record discloses that the trial court failed to make reviewable factual findings regarding certain factors.

In this case, the appeals court vacated the portions of the amended judgment of divorce pertaining to spousal support, the division of the life insurance policy, and attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings.

It is important to remember that decrees regarding child support, child custody, visitation and spousal support (alimony) are not always final.

Our family law attorneys at Aldrich Legal Services have helped countless family law clients across southeast Michigan, including in Wayne, Washtenaw and Oakland counties, receive modifications that more fairly meet their needs. Contact us at our law firm in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

 

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from community service to fines, to jail or prison...

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

How to Dispute an Insurance Adjustment

When something drastic happens, many people need to take extra steps to rebuild your home, recover property, or pay medical bill collectors. Unfortunately, most people believe they have no backup plan if their insurance company refuses their claim...

PROBATE 28: Probate court enters a protective order providing support for a community spouse.

A probate court’s consideration of the couple’s circumstances cannot involve an assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care.

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405