734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Divorce 63: Defendant’s spousal support conditioned upon whether plaintiff engages in contract work.

Plaintiff eventually separated from defendant and filed for divorce. The judgment of divorce stated that a spousal support award was not appropriate unless plaintiff engaged in independent contracting work with the government. The order noted that such work appeared to be unlikely but explained that plaintiff’s acceptance of contracting work would result in enough of a disparity of income between the parties to warrant some adjustment.

Spousal Support

Accordingly, the judgment required that plaintiff account for any contracting work accepted after entry of the divorce on October 10, 2019, until December 31, 2024. The judgment calculated alimony on the following sliding scale. If the Plaintiff never again engages in independent contracting working or does not engage in any independent contracting work until 2025, he will not be required to pay anything as spousal support.

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by conditioning defendant’s entitlement to spousal support on whether plaintiff chooses to engage in contract work. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to plaintiff for purposes of spousal support because he had the ability to earn a substantial amount of money through contract work and had a history of doing so.

Spousal Support Factors

The object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished; spousal support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Spousal support does not follow a strict formula.

In deciding whether to award spousal support, trial courts should consider the following factors:

(1) the past relations and conduct of the parties,

(2) the length of the marriage,

(3) the abilities of the parties to work,

(4) the source and amount of property awarded to the parties,

(5) the parties’ ages,

(6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony,

(7) the present situation of the parties,

(8) the needs of the parties,

(9) the parties’ health,

(10) the prior standard of living of the parties,

(11) contributions of the parties to the joint estate,

(12) a party’s fault in causing the divorce,

(13) the effect of cohabitation on a party’s financial status, and

(14) general principles of equity

Trial Court

The court determined that defendant, if she chose to remain in her current situation, would be able to support herself from revenue obtained by operating the store and renting at least one of her residences.

The trial court acknowledged plaintiff’s earning potential and accordingly ordered that a percentage of any contracting revenue made by plaintiff be paid to defendant for the next several years. Notably, plaintiff testified at trial that the contract jobs were very demanding and that they required him to work long hours away from home for several weeks at a time. As a retiree from the military, he testified that he did not desire to continue to do the amount of work these optional contracts demanded. Therefore, the trial court’s decision not to impute income to the work to render it essentially an obligation, and instead to condition spousal support payments on whether plaintiff chose to accept contract work was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

Helping You Make Sense of Support Formulas

If you feel you are paying too much or not receiving enough, our lawyers have successfully helped many clients receive support modifications. We can use our experience and knowledge of family law to help you determine if this is the right choice for you.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

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.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

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