734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

DIVORCE 49: IT WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO AWARD BOTH PARTIES THEIR OWN APPRECIATED 401(K) ACCOUNTS.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s divorce judgment, challenging the decision to award each party their respective 401(k) accounts. Plaintiff argued in the trial court that she was entitled to a portion of the appreciation that accrued to defendant’s 401(k) during the marriage as a marital asset under MCL 552.18(1). To the contrary, defendant argued that plaintiff was not entitled to any of his 401(k) because both parties contributed the same amount of money to their respective 401(k) plans during the marriage and defendant’s 401(k) account only grew more because he started out with more—which was his premarital, separate property. The trial court agreed with defendant, holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any portion of defendant’s 401(k). Plaintiff appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 In a divorce action, this Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings on the division of marital property and whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We consider whether a trial court’s dispositional rulings are fair and equitable in light of its findings of fact and will reverse only if convinced that the disposition is inequitable.

ANALYSIS

The goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceeding is to reach an equitable distribution of property in light of all the circumstances. Typically, each party will be awarded their own separate property without division with the other party. There is no dispute in this case that the amount of defendant’s 401(k) account that accrued up until the parties were married was defendant’s separate property and not subject to division as marital property. The growth of Defendant’s 401(k) was achieved with contributions from marital property.  However, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s decision to award each party their own appreciated 401(k) plan was fair and equitable. As the trial court noted, both parties contributed the same amount of marital funds—$18,500 a year—toward their respective 401(k) accounts during the marriage. The fact that defendant’s account grew more than plaintiff’s account was simply because he had substantially more in his account before the parties were married. Under the circumstances of this case, by awarding each party their own appreciated 401(k) accounts, the trial court achieved a fair and equitable settlement.

ADVICE TO CLIENTS HAVING PROPERTY DIVISION ISSUES IN DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS

Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have property settlement issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parties throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of divorce related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

What does Client and Attorney Privilege Mean?

How much should you tell your lawyer? The fifth amendment protects U.S. citizens from incriminating themselves, but how does that work with your attorney. We get this question all the time. Many people have heard about attorney confidentiality,...

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