DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.

The parties were married for 22 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. They had previously owned a McDonald’s franchise in Michigan and enjoyed a high standard of living. In 2015, they sold the franchise. Attempts at starting new businesses in Florida failed, and eventually the couple moved back to Michigan and filed for bankruptcy. At the time of trial, no significant marital assets remained, and the parties had each obtained employment. The parties had nine children together. Only the four youngest children remained minors when judgment was entered, and those children resided with plaintiff.

Custody of Children

The trial court concluded that the parties could not agree on anything related to parenting and that plaintiff would have sole legal custody of the minor children. The trial court also awarded plaintiff primary physical custody of the children. Defendant was granted limited unsupervised parenting time, mainly eight daytime hours every other Sunday. The trial court found that both parties were employed, and that spousal support was not warranted.

Tax Debt

The court additionally determined that a tax debt generated by the sale of the McDonald’s franchise would be divided equally between the parties.

This debt was incurred from the sale of the McDonald’s restaurant and the parties chose to invest the proceeds in a failed business venture rather than paying the taxes due on the sales proceeds. Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions. The court would find that each party is equally responsible for the tax debt.

Legal Assistance with Michigan Divorces

In order to protect your parental and financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way. If your divorce is not resolved before trial, we have the courtroom skills and experience to help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 93: Parents’ relationship had become so bitter court determined it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody.

The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established that a change of custody was in AH’s best interests, noting the parties were unable or unwilling to work together to reach an agreement on AH’s education and medical treatment.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 21: Plaintiff file a motion to enforcement the judgment of divorce.

The referee recommended that the trial court grant plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the judgment and require the parties to comply with its provisions and further recommended that plaintiff’s request for attorney fees be preserved and awarded should plaintiff have to return to court.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 76: Defendant had not exercised his parenting time with the children to warrant the award of any child support amount.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and child support. Plaintiff characterized the failed parenting-time arrangement as newly discovered evidence that negated her child support obligation.

DIVORCE 75: The trial court agreed that the long morning commute on school days satisfied the threshold burden for reconsidering custody.

The court expressed concern regarding plaintiff’s failure to appreciate how her actions left the children in a position of having to keep secrets from defendant, caused them uncertainty about their future schooling, and made them feel guilty for telling defendant the truth.

DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.

The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration.

DIVORCE 72: Defendant asserts the trial court failed to acknowledge the seven-day rule.

MCR 2.602(B)(3), the so-called seven-day rule, allows a party to serve a copy of the proposed judgment or order on the other parties, with a notice to them that it will be submitted to the court for signing if no written objections to its accuracy or completeness are filed with the court clerk within 7 days after service of the notice.

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

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.

Family Law 84: Trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause.

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing reasonable cause for issuance of a PPO, and of establishing a justification for the continuance of a PPO at a hearing on the respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

DIVORCE 70: Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children.

Defendant filed an answer, countering that it was in the children’s best interests for the parties to share joint legal and joint physical custody. During the divorce proceedings, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children, which the trial court granted.