Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 71: Court determined house was marital property and defendant was not entitled to spousal support.

The parties were married on December 28, 2007, and they separated on December 5, 2019. Plaintiff filed for divorce on December 30, 2019. The parties did not have any children together, but plaintiff had two adult children from a prior relationship. A contested divorce trial was conducted on November 13, 2020. Two of the main issues to be resolved at the trial included division of property—specifically, the marital home—and spousal support.

Marital Home

Defendant argued that the marital home should be deemed his separate property. The parties came into possession of the home as part of the distribution of defendant’s father’s trust following his death. The trust provided that the home be given to defendant and made no mention of plaintiff; however, the quitclaim deeds conveying the house and a plot of farmland named both plaintiff and defendant as the recipients.

The parties moved into the home before defendant’s father passed away in January 2009 and lived in the home for 11 years, up until the point of separation.

Spousal Support

The other major point of contention at the trial was the issue of spousal support, to which defendant argued he was entitled because plaintiff supported him through almost the entirety of the marriage, and he would be left destitute without such support.

During the marriage, plaintiff was the primary breadwinner, working 40 hours a week for $12 an hour. Plaintiff made additional income by growing marijuana in the parties’ pole barn. After the parties separated, plaintiff’s wage increased to $16 an hour, but she did not continue her marijuana operation. Defendant had not been employed since 2011, but he received $870 a month from Social Security disability benefits.

Defendant testified that this was his only source of income, but he also had been making unexplained cash deposits into the parties’ joint bank account that totaled approximately $2,000 a month.

Court Decision

Prior to dividing assets, the trial court must determine what is marital property and what is separate property. Generally, marital property is that which is acquired or earned during the marriage, whereas separate property is that which is obtained or earned before the marriage. The marital property is then apportioned between the parties in a manner that is equitable.

The court determined that the house was marital property, and that defendant was not entitled to spousal support. The trial court was bound by the terms of the quitclaim deed and correctly concluded that the house was marital property.

The object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished.

Both Parties have modest incomes. According to the testimony, Plaintiff makes approximately $32,000 yearly. Defendant makes $870 monthly equating to $10,440 a year. That puts Defendant under the federal poverty line. If the Court imputes a further income of $2,000 monthly for the various cash deposits in his bank account, then he makes approximately $30,000 per year. The trial court found that plaintiff and defendant both had modest incomes and that, including defendant’s unexplained cash deposits, plaintiff made only slightly more than defendant. In addition, the trial court noted that plaintiff did not have the means to pay spousal support because she had substantial debt and was financially supporting her unemployed adult son.

Legal Assistance with Property Division

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes. We provide guidance with all issues involving the division of property, assets, and debts incident to divorce.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

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