Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 30: Trial court not required to consider the tax consequences of property division.

The parties were married in 1992, and Plaintiff filed for divorce in July 2016. The marital estate was valued at $806,004.46, and the parties agreed to an equal distribution of the assets.

From the parties’ real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, Plaintiff would receive $71,488.11 and defendant would receive $384,928.56. From retirement assets, Plaintiff would receive $273,896.17 and defendant would receive $71,488.11. To equalize the division of real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, defendant would pay Plaintiff $154,618.47 in Non-Retirement Assets. Similarly, to equalize the division of retirement assets, Plaintiff would provide defendant with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for $101,204.03 from her retirement assets.

Despite their agreement to the above, the parties disputed the method for completing the equalizing payments. Plaintiff proposed that the $154,618.47 owed to her be paid in full and in cash. However, Defendant submitted that he pays $54,618.47 in cash and, for the other $100,000, offset this from the $101,204.03 owed to him by Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff would owe him only $1,204.03 from her retirement assets.

Plaintiff challenged Defendant’s proposal, arguing that as a result of tax consequences the $100,000 offset was not equal to $100,000 paid to her in cash because once she withdrew the $100,000 from her retirement accounts she would have to pay taxes and, if she withdrew the funds early, she would also incur a penalty for early withdrawal.

In lieu of a trial and hearing, the parties submitted briefs to the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendant’s distribution proposal, concluding that it would not consider the tax consequences of the distribution. In doing so, the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that she would “incur predicable and foreseeable tax penalties to cash in the retirement funds,” and ruled that, if it accepted Plaintiff’s argument, “it would be forced to speculate when—or even if—she would cash in the accounts.” The trial court found Defendant’s “position to more accurately and equitably divide the present value of the estate.” Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, asserting in an affidavit that she intended to immediately withdraw the retirement funds. The court denied the motion.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by declining to consider the possible tax consequences arising from the selected distribution method.

In this case, the trial court could, but was not required to consider the tax consequences of the property division. In the proceedings, Plaintiff initially stated that she intended to withdraw funds from her retirement accounts sometime in the future, and she submitted evidence showing potential tax penalties arising from the withdrawal of funds from her retirement accounts. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court determined that Plaintiff had not established that the tax consequences were reasonably likely to occur and were not merely speculative. Given the record before the court, its decision was a reasonable and principled outcome and not an abuse of discretion.

In order to protect your parental and financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way. At the Plymouth and Ann Arbor law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys have the skill and experience you need to address all family law issues that may arise during your divorce.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

A Cheap Divorce is Not Worth It

Money is an important factor whenever you work with a professional. When you go through a divorce, your money and time can get even tighter. Hiring a cheap lawyer to handle your case could be attractive. However, they will end up letting you down....

REAL ESTATE 50: Trial court relied upon warranty deed documents that provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement.

In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon the 2013 warranty deed documents that twice expressly provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement. Review of the 2005 Amendment demonstrated that every aspect of the Original Easement was expressly repeated, modified, or omitted. Nothing in the language of the 2005 Amendment suggests that it is intended to be read in conjunction with the Original Easement.

PROBATE 33: Petitioners filed for co-guardianship of each grandchild.

Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.

What are Replevin Bonds or Surety Bonds?

It would be a wonderful world if people followed through on the agreements they make. There would be less stress, anxiety, and time wasted if people held up their end of a contract 100% of the time. The legal process would run much more smoothly and...

Are Juvenile Records Public or Can They be Expunged?

There is something in most people’s life they regret - if they could redo a moment, they would have done it better. Although there is no physical way to erase the past or redo past wrongs, there is a legal way to prevent some of the crimes...

FAMILY LAW 42: Motion to modify custody denied due to lack of supporting affidavits or documentation.

The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters. The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.

WILLS/TRUSTS 21: Plaintiff alleged the University failed to use the funds consistent with the terms of the trust.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.

What is Collaborative Divorce Family Law?

Coming to the end of a happy time is a challenge no one wants to deal with in life. The end of a marriage through a divorce can especially be a tough, emotional, and complicated period. Lawyers and judges deciding your future, remembering important...

FAMILY LAW 41: To minimize disruptive changes in children’s custody, moving party must establish cause or a change of circumstance.

To minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes in children’s custody, a trial court may only modify children’s custody if the moving party first establishes a proper cause or a change of circumstances. The purpose of this framework is to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

DIVORCE 35: Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit are generally considered separate property.

Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit meant to compensate for pain and suffering, as opposed to lost wages, are generally considered separate property. Moreover, separate assets may lose their character as separate property and transform into marital property if they are commingled with marital assets and treated by the parties as marital property.

4 Common Real Estate Disputes to Watch Out For

Creating a mutually beneficial real estate deal usually goes through smoothly with both sides presenting their interests then negotiating toward a middle ground they can both agree to uphold. Unfortunately, not all deals go through without an issue....

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...

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000