Girls friends get you less property

Issues: How does a girl friend hurt your divorce.

VLOGG ON THIS TOPIC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZOajKOdR9I

Divorce; Whether the trial court properly did not include the Detroit house in the marital estate; McDougal v. McDougal; Reeves v. Reeves; Whether the trial court properly assessed fault to the plaintiff-husband and awarded 60 percent of the marital estate to the defendant-wife; Whether the spousal support award was excessive; Olson v. Olson

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Homayed v. Homayed

UNPUBLISHED, November 6, 2007 ,No. 271671 , Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-506909-DO, e-Journal Number: 37566
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Markey, Saad, and Wilder

The parties were married in August, 1991, and the judgment of divorce was entered in
March, 2006.

Plaintiff [Husband] had initially filed a complaint for separate maintenance, but the case was tried as a divorce matter. Following a trial, the trial court entered a judgment which plaintiff now challenges in part.

Plaintiff contends that a home in Detroit which was owned at one time
by defendant should have been treated as a part of the marital estate and its value divided equally between the parties.

Plaintiff further contends that the trial court’s assessment of fault to
plaintiff, its division of the marital estate, and its award of spousal support to defendant [wife], were all clearly erroneous.

The trial court did not err by not including the Detroit house in the marital estate and properly entered the judgment of divorce.

The plaintiff-husband contended a home in Detroit owned at one time by the defendant-wife should have been treated as a part of the marital estate and its value divided equally between the parties.

The Detroit house was sold in 1997, long before the divorce.

Plaintiff was evidently challenging the trial court’s characterization of the proceeds of the sale of this home, which the trial court referenced in its discussion of the parties’ contributions to the Brownstown property, as defendant’s “separate asset.”

Plaintiff argued the trial court’s finding the proceeds from the sale were defendant’s separate property was clearly erroneous because (1) evidence was introduced he paid all the monthly bills on the home for 11 years, (2) he paid down the mortgage by $5,000, and (3) he invested $30,000 in capital improvements to the home.


The trial court expressly discredited plaintiff’s testimony with respect to money spent for remodeling the Detroit home.

Although the trial court did not make specific findings with respect to plaintiff’s claims of paying the monthly bills and paying down $5,000 on the mortgage, the absence of specific findings on these minor points did not entitle plaintiff to relief. [during appeal]

Whether plaintiff paid the monthly bills and whether he paid down the mortgage was immaterial to whether the proceeds of the sale were defendant’s separate property.

As this Court has held in regard to the increase in value of a premarital asset during the marriage, whether by equity payments or appreciation,
[t]he sharing and maintenance of a marital home affords both spouses an
interest in any increase in its value (whether by equity payments or appreciation) over the term of a marriage.

Such amount is clearly part of the marital estate.

The parties did not present evidence of the value of the Detroit home and defendant’s equity in the home at the time of the marriage so the appreciation, if any, could be determined.

However, the down payment, the equity built up before the parties’ marriage, and
any appreciation that occurred before the parties’ marriage should have been
considered defendant’s separate estate. [Reeves v Reeves, 226 Mich App 490,
495-496; 575 NW2d 1 (1997).]

Without evidence of an increase in value occurring during the marriage, the trial court’s characterization of the proceeds of the sale of the home as defendant’s separate property was not clear error. Further, any error would have been harmless. Affirmed.
–
* The Detroit property was relevant only as a factor in evaluating the contributions of the parties for the purpose of determining an equitable division of the parties’ marital assets.

*The contribution of each party to the marital estate is one of several factors that a trial court may consider. See McDougal, supra, p 89.

*Assuming arguendo that the characterization was not entirely accurate, the inaccuracy would warrant relief only if correction of the mischaracterization of the parties’ initial contribution to the Brownstown home would likely affect the court’s dispositional ruling.

Even if a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the Detroit property should have been considered a joint contribution to the purchase of the Brownstown property,
the trial court’s explanation of its ruling negates the suggestion that its division of the equity in the Brownstown property at 60 percent to defendant and 40 percent to plaintiff would have been any different.

FAULT

*Plaintiff also argues that the trial court clearly erred in assessing fault to him and awarding 60% of the marital estate to the defendant. We disagree.

The trial court’s finding that fault should be assessed to plaintiff is supported by
defendant’s testimony.

THE MARRIED MAN HAD AN AFFAIR AND TOLD HIS WIFE.

Defendant testified that the parties reconciled after plaintiff admitted having an affair and apologized.

ATTEMPTED RECONCILIATION
Subsequent to his apology and during their attempted reconciliation,

THE MARRIED MAN ADMITTED TO ANOTHER AFFAIR
however, plaintiff admitted that he was again having an affair.

HE LATER THEN ASKED HER TO TAKE HIM BACK, SHE DID.
SHE DISMISSED THE CASE.

In August 2005, after a settlement conference, plaintiff asked defendant to “take him back” and she dismissed the case.

THE MARRIED MAN TOLD HIS WIFE HE WAS GOING TO LIVE WITH HIS GIRL FRIEND FOR 90 DAYS.
After the case was dismissed, however, plaintiff told defendant that he was not coming back for two or three months so that he could be with another woman.

FAULT BASED UPON THE GIRL FRIEND HURTING THE RECONCILIATION.
DO A THINK!

The record supports the court’s factual finding that plaintiff’s relationship with another woman impeded the parties’efforts at reconciliation, and that fault should be assessed to the plaintiff.

THE COURT GIVES THE WIFE 60% Why? Because the husband had a girl friend!

Given the evidence, we find no clear error in the trial court’s allocation of 60% of the marital estate to defendant.

FAULT USED TO AWARD SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Lastly, plaintiff claims that the spousal support award was excessive as a matter of law because the court “erred by relying on ‘fault’ which was not proven and on an arrest which was never prosecuted.”

*However, in determining spousal support, a trial court may consider “the past relations and conduct of the parties,” and “a party’s fault in causing the divorce.” Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619, 631; 671 NW2d 64 (2003). The arrest, which immediately preceded plaintiff’s moving out of the marital home, and the extramarital relationship were appropriately considered by the
trial court.
--end

Vlogg on getting child support lowered.
The 3 min topic concerns how you get child support lowered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvW6V6HQCmQ