Divorce; Property division; Whether property was marital or separate; Distinguishing Reeves v Reeves, Woodington v Shokoohi, & Gates v Gates; Tenancy by the entirety; Canjar v Cole; Spousal support; Elahham v Al-Jabban

The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that certain real property (the 13 Mile Road property) that was deeded to both parties “during their marriage as tenants by the entirety, was not marital property.” And its spousal support award, which granted plaintiff-ex-wife (Sharease) “extra equity in the marital home as alimony-in-gross, . . . is inextricably tied to its property division.” Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling as to the 13 Mile Road property, vacated in part the divorce judgment as to property division and spousal support, and remanded. While defendant-ex-husband’s (Terry) mother (R) “testified that she wanted Terry to inherit the property, she also testified that she intended to gift the property to both Sharease and Terry, and there” was no dispute that R deeded it via a quitclaim deed to both as tenants by the entirety, subject to her life estate. The court concluded that R’s “testimony that she intended for the property to be Terry’s inheritance does not change the legal effect of the deed. [R] executed the deed while Sharease and Terry were married, and gave them an interest in the property reserved exclusively for married couples.” The fact that she deeded “the property in this manner showed [R’s] clear intent to grant both Sharease and Terry ownership of the 13 Mile Road property. And by the nature of their tenancy, neither Sharease nor Terry had a separate interest in” it. The court noted while their later “divorce was likely not anticipated by [R] at the time, it does not change the interest in the property that [R] gave the couple. The plain language of the deed suggests that the property was a gift to both Sharease and Terry, not that it was intended for Terry alone as his inheritance from [R] upon her death.” Thus, the trial court’s ruling that the property was Terry’s separate property was clearly erroneous. The court found the cases on which Terry relied – Reeves, Woodington, and Gates – were distinguishable. On “remand, the trial court should reconsider both the spousal support award and its property division in light of” the court’s holding as to the 13 Mile Road property. After reconsidering the property division, if it “continues to believe that spousal support is appropriate, it should order spousal support that is fair and equitable.”