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.
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:
FAMILY LAW 54: The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support.
The parties were married for over 20 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. At the divorce trial, the parties’ incomes were a source of contention. Plaintiff wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating...
DIVORCE 43: TRIAL COURT’S DECISION REGARDING MODIFYING SPOUSAL SUPPORT MUST BE AFFIRMED UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY INEQUITABLE
Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1990 and divorced in 2013. The parties’ consent judgment of divorce provided, among other things, that defendant would pay plaintiff modifiable spousal support in the amount of $3,200 per...
DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.
As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.
FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
DIVORCE 25: Judgement of divorce ordered children as beneficiary on life insurance policies presently outstanding.
In order to provide security for the payment of his support obligations in the event of his death, the judgment also ordered decedent to irrevocably designate the minor children of the parties as the beneficiary on any and all life insurance policies presently outstanding upon his life, until his duty to support shall cease.
The primary purpose of spousal support is to balance the parties' incomes and needs so that neither party will be impoverished, and spousal support must be based on what is just and reasonable considering the circumstances of the case.
The Michigan statute governing spousal support favors a case-by-case approach to determining spousal support.
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 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...