The Michigan statute governing spousal support favors a case-by-case approach to determining spousal support.
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Spousal Support category:
At issue in this case is whether Plaintiff satisfied the jurisdictional residency requirement contained in MCL 552.9(1), which provides that a judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in this state for 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
With regard to defendant’s income, the trial court found that defendant earned an average of $15,300 per year from his drywall business and $120,000 per year from his medical marijuana grow operation during that same period.
To award fees on the basis of misconduct, the trial court must determine that misconduct, in fact, occurred and that the misconduct caused the party seeking fees to incur the fees awarded.
DIVORCE 14: A temporary order remains in effect until modified or until the entry of the final judgment of divorce.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in extending the status quo beyond entry of the JOD. Pursuant to MCR 3.207(C)(5), a temporary order remains in effect until modified or until the entry of the final judgment or order.
The Court recognizes that 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.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-ex-wife's motion for spousal support on the ground that it was premature according to the terms of the parties' consent JOD.
The parties entered into a consent JOD that covered custody and property division. It also reserved the issue of spousal support "until the expiration of four years from the date of entry of this Judgment of Divorce." Defendant later moved for...
The trial court did not clearly err in its factual findings or abuse its discretion in the imputation of income, and the spousal support awarded was not inequitable under the circumstances.
Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting spousal support in favor of the defendant-ex-wife for $2,451 per month. On appeal, the plaintiff-ex-husband argued that the trial court erroneously calculated the parties' respective...