Divorce; Spousal support; MCL 552.23; Woodington v Shokoohi; Fault; Denman v Denman; Sparks v Sparks; Reasonableness; Division of marital property; Marital estate; Korth v Korth; Marital assets; MCL 552.19; Cunningham v Cunningham; Separate assets; Consideration of fault in the division of marital property; Washington v Washington

The court held that the trial court did not err in its property division and award of spousal support for defendant-ex-wife. The trial court classified the parties’ home as marital property but awarded plaintiff-ex-husband the value of his premarital interest in the property. It also awarded each party their personal effects, retirement accounts, and life insurance benefits. It then divided the remainder of their marital equity in the home, awarded the home to defendant, and ordered her to pay plaintiff $40,000 within four months or the home would be sold. Finally, it awarded defendant $400 per month in spousal support for a period of two years. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding defendant spousal support based in part on erroneous factual findings. “The trial court’s finding that [plaintiff] was primarily at fault for the parties divorce was supported by the record.” In addition, “[i]n evaluating the spousal-support factors, the trial court found that the 17-year length of the parties’ marriage, [defendant’s] unequal earning ability, the amount of property awarded to the parties, [defendant’s] need for support and [plaintiff’s] ability to pay support, the parties’ present situation, the parties’ prior standard of living, and the general principles of equity all favored” defendant. The support award was not unreasonable. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by classifying the parties’ home as marital property and abused its discretion by awarding it to defendant. “The evidence reflects that the parties did not treat the home as [plaintiff’s] separate property, and that the parties both contributed to the care and improvement of the home with marital assets. Further, the trial court identified [plaintiff’s] interest in the property before the parties’ marriage and treated it as separate property.” Moreover, given “the evidence of the parties’ contentious relationship toward the end of their marriage and [plaintiff’s] frustration with the frequency in which [defendant] babysat her grandchildren, the trial court did not” err by finding plaintiff “could possibly become agitated by living in close proximity to” defendant’s family. Finally, in light of defendant’s “estimated monthly income and estimated monthly expenses, the [trial] court appropriately found that she would be unable to support herself in her prior standard of living without the marital home.” Affirmed.