Divorce; Property division; Determining whether property is marital property; Cunningham v Cunningham; Imputing income in determining support obligations; The 2021 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (MCSF); Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(a)

The court found no error in the trial court’s determination of whether certain property constituted part of the marital estate or in its division of the martial estate. It further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income to defendant-ex-husband to determine his support obligations or in its award of attorney fees to plaintiff-ex-wife. Thus, the court affirmed the divorce judgment. Defendant asserted that property in Yemen should have been considered his separate property because he inherited it. The court disagreed. “The trial court, crediting plaintiff’s testimony, appropriately distinguished the inherited property (the land) from improvements made to the inherited property (the house defendant built on the land). From there, [it] appropriately limited the possible award to plaintiff to a portion of the improvements to the property.” The court found no error in “this reasoning given that the house was built during the parties’ marriage, and if defendant used money he earned during the marriage (i.e., marital funds) to build the house, it is likely marital property subject to division.” Defendant also generally challenged the property division as inequitable because it favored plaintiff. The “trial court explained why it believed such an award was equitable under the circumstances. It explained that the parties had been married for 20 years, and that plaintiff married defendant while she was ‘fairly young’; she was 35 years old at the time of trial. [It] also considered plaintiff’s contributions to the marriage—she had always been a ‘stay at home wife,’ and after the parties had children, she was tasked with caring for [them] while defendant traveled for work.” It also considered her earning ability, noting “she could learn ‘some training and skills’ to be able to provide for herself but that would take time. In contrast, [it] believed that defendant had ‘extensive knowledge’ about business and had proven himself ‘quite resourceful’ when ‘finding ways to earn income.’” In addition, it found that his “testimony about ‘his income and business’ to be especially ‘concerning.’ Given these considerations, it is hardly surprising that [it] determined that plaintiff was entitled to a larger share of the marital estate.” Further, based on the record, the “decision to impute income to defendant, and the amount of income imputed, was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes . . . .” Finally, the court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff did not have the ability to pay her attorney fees” and that defendant did.