Now Accepting New Clients!


The parties were married in 1988 and have three adult children. During their marriage, the parties purchased the marital home in 1994 (1994 home) with marital funds. After plaintiff’s father died in 2006, the home next door to the marital home was purchased, (2006 home) ostensibly for plaintiff’s mother. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued an opinion and order regarding the distribution and division of the parties’ assets. A judgment of divorce was entered thereafter consistent with the court’s opinion and order. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s division of assets, arguing that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneously and the distribution is inequitable.


Plaintiff first argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that defendant’s pension was not a marital asset. We agree that the trial court committed legal error by so ruling, however, we find that, following review of the record as a whole, such error does not necessitate reversal for the reasons more fully articulated below. “However, treatment of pension benefits may vary. Depending on the equities and the circumstances, pensions may be distributed through either the property division or the award of alimony.” Defendant’s pension was clearly marital property because it was accrued by defendant during the marriage. However, the trial court has discretion in its treatment of a pension. Because the pension was in pay status, we cannot find, on this record, that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that the pension should be treated as defendant’s income and awarded only as spousal support. Moreover, the trial court properly considered the situation and circumstances of the parties in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to an award of spousal support, and plaintiff does not challenge that finding. Following our review of the record evidence in its entirety, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff could work at least part-time and by awarding defendant his entire pension.

Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred by failing to award her an interest in the 1994 home, by using an improper valuation date of the home, and by failing to find that funds used by defendant from his inheritance to pay off the mortgage were marital assets. Again, we review a trial court’s factual findings, including the valuation of particular marital assets, for clear error. The trial court set off the approximately $20,000 that plaintiff received from the sale of the 2006 home. Accordingly, by awarding defendant the 1994 home, the trial court awarded the parties marital property of approximate equal value. This division was fair and equitable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Next, plaintiff also argues that the trial court’s setoff of $120,000 against the AXA Equitable account was inequitable. As previously stated, we review the trial court’s factual findings, including the valuation of particular marital assets, for clear error. Plaintiff argues that the setoff was inequitable because the $120,000 that she took no longer existed and had been used by plaintiff as income. The fact that it no longer existed, however, is irrelevant because the trial court found that plaintiff had taken the $120,000 and dissipated that marital asset. Therefore, the trial court did not err by awarding defendant the AXA Equitable account, which was worth approximately the same amount as the marital asset dissipated by plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that the valuation date of the National Western Annuity used by the trial court was clearly inequitable. “The determination of the proper time for valuation of an asset is in the trial court’s discretion.” The trial court did not clearly err by finding that the parties manifested an intent to lead separate lives when they separated in 2013. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by using a 2013 valuation date for the National Western Annuity.


The trial court’s factual findings regarding the marital assets are not clearly erroneous. The trial court’s dispositional ruling was fair and equitable in light of those findings.


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


5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

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...

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