Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be $135,000. After the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, the trial court made findings of fact on the record. The trial court found: The equity, however, will be reduced by the cost that would be to sell the marital home, as that would be the distribution, should that be sold. And, although there are no other – there’s no other evidence as it relates to the costs set forth in the home, there is a commission that would normally be charged at 7%. That leaves the-each party would be awarded $9,912.00 from that equity. If you take the award and the values set forth, the-it would be $22,112.00 to [defendant] and $15,462 to [plaintiff], so I am going to divide that difference. [Defendant] will owe [plaintiff], $3,325.00, that will equalize the marital estate. And, the Judgment of Divorce may be – an amended Judgment of Divorce may be entered consistent with that distribution.


This Court has explained the standard of review for distribution of marital property as follows: In deciding issues on appeal involving division of marital property, this Court first reviews the trial court’s findings of fact. Findings of fact, such as a trial court’s valuations of particular marital assets, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.


Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s factual findings are unsupported by the record evidence, and thus cannot stand. We agree. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by reducing the equity in the marital home by 7%, which would represent a realtor’s commission if the home were to be sold, and by assigning “arbitrary” and “speculative” values to four motor vehicles, a pontoon boat, defendant’s tools, and the furniture inside the marital home. In assigning factually unsupported values to these items, the trial court valued defendant’s portion of the marital estate at $22,112 to plaintiff’s $15,462, and ordered defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff in order to “equalize the marital estate.” We conclude that the trial court erroneously deducted a 7% realtor’s commission on the sale of the home if it were to sell for $135,000. This 7% commission figure was based off of plaintiff’s testimony that in September 2017, if plaintiff had been ordered to pay defendant his portion of the home’s equity, she would have been forced to sell the home. However, plaintiff offered no evidence that she was actually planning on selling the home, or that she had even met with a realtor. Moreover, plaintiff offered no evidence to substantiate her position that any realtor would have taken a 7% commission on the sale, if the 7% commission was a standard commission, if the home would be listed at $135,000, or if comparable homes in plaintiff’s area had sold for close to $135,000. Thus, the trial court’s finding that the parties’ equity in the home should be reduced by a hypothetical 7% realtor commission was speculative, and therefore inadequate. We conclude that the trial court’s original valuation of the marital home was accurate, and that parties’ joint equity in the marital home as of September 2017 was $29,273.58, or $14,636.79 each. Next, we agree with defendant that the trial court’s factual findings regarding the value of four motor vehicles, a pontoon boat, defendant’s tools, and the furniture inside the home were inadequate. Plaintiff sought to include all of the aforementioned items in the marital estate, yet failed to present any evidence regarding their value. Again, the trial court’s findings regarding the value of the aforementioned personal property is not based on any fact in evidence, and thus, is speculative. These findings are inadequate and therefore cannot stand. Accordingly, we conclude that where plaintiff sought to include all of the aforementioned property in the marital estate, yet failed to meet her burden of proving the property’s reasonably ascertainable value, the property should not have been “considered an asset with value subject to distribution” in the marital estate.


We conclude that where plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the reasonably ascertainable value of the four motor vehicles, the pontoon boat, defendant’s tools, and the furniture inside the marital home, these items of personal property should not have been considered assets with value subject to distribution  the equity in the marital home should not have been reduced by 7%. This leaves the marital home as the sole asset of value subject to equitable distribution. On the basis of the foregoing, we further conclude that the parties’ shares of the marital estate were equal, and had a value of $14,636.79 each. Therefore, defendant should  not be required to pay any monies to plaintiff to equalize the marital estate, as the estate is already equal. We reverse, vacate the portion of the Amended Default Judgment of Divorce ordering defendant pay $3,325 to plaintiff to equalize the marital estate, and remand for entry of a Second Amended Default Judgment of Divorce consistent with this opinion.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have to divide the marital estate.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000


PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. 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...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

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...

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