Spousal Support changes

DON’T LIKE YOUR SPOUSAL SUPPORT! TRY AGAIN
Issues: Spousal support; Olson v. Olson; Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.; Moore v. Moore
[This material is from a electronically distributed ruling but is modified for media presentation. Do not rely on its contents without seeking the advice of an attorney. My changes are in CAP HEADLINES of boxed[]. Deleted material shown as ...-Terry Bankert]
HIGHER COURTS RULING
Based on the trial court's considerations of "the respective incomes of the parties, the ability of plaintiff to pay spousal support and the needs of defendant given the medical care constraints placed upon her by the parties' minor child's illness and disability," which were supported by the record, along with the income calculations, the trial court's decision to award $550 per month in spousal support was not an abuse of discretion.
HUSBAND WANTED THE COURT TO USE NEW INFORMATION
The plaintiff-husband argued the trial court erred by considering the facts relevant to spousal support as they existed at the time the court issued its previous opinion, particularly calculations of the parties' incomes.
THE JUDGE DID NOT TREAT HIM FAIR,...HIS OPINION
Plaintiff alleged the award of spousal support was excessive and the case should be remanded to a different judge.
THE LOWER COURT SAID WE HAVE LOOKED AT ENOUGH
The trial court expressly confirmed it had considered appropriate factors in its decision. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the trial court did not err when it chose to use the income amounts calculated by the court in its earlier opinion.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST ORDER
Further, the evidence supported the conclusion nothing had significantly changed since the court's previous opinion.
NEITHER PARTY DID THEIR JOB OF PROVIDING PROOF
Neither party offered compelling evidence any amounts should be revised. The evidence showed, inter alia, plaintiff earned approximately $36,900 from May 2006 to May 2007.
This was roughly equal to the $37,400 income the court attributed to him in its prior opinion.
The trial court had the discretion to fashion spousal support payments. Affirmed.
-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
RONNIE L. STRUNK,
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant-
Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
February 3, 2009
v No. 281554
Oakland Circuit Court
PAMELA A. STRUNK,
LC No. 2004-698096-DM
e-Journal Number: 41745
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
- COMPLETE CASE FOLLOWS
Plaintiff appeals as of right, challenging the trial court’s award of spousal support to
plaintiff.1 We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by considering the facts relevant to spousal
support as they existed at the time this Court issued its previous opinion, particularly calculations
of the parties’ incomes.2 Plaintiff alleges that the award of spousal support was excessive and
that this matter should be remanded to a different judge.
1 This is the second appeal in this matter. In the first appeal (Docket No. 264246), this Court
vacated the child and spousal supports set by the trial court and remanded for reconsideration in
accordance with an opinion dated February 15, 2007. This appeal is from the trial court’s
opinion on remand.
2 Defendant did not file a cross appeal; however, in her brief, with no citation to authority, she
argued that the trial court did not have the authority to consider her receipt of $2,665 in State
benefits in the divorce proceeding. Defendant has abandoned this issue by giving it cursory
treatment in her brief. Houghton v Keller, 256 Mich App 336, 340; 662 NW2d 854 (2003).
Further, defendant did not present any evidence of plaintiff’s imputed income, which she also
alleged.
This Court reviews a trial court’s award of spousal support for an abuse of discretion.
Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619, 631; 671 NW2d 64 (2003). An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court’s decision falls outside of the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). This Court reviews a
trial court’s findings of fact related to spousal support for clear error. Moore v Moore, 242 Mich
App 652, 654; 619 NW2d 723 (2000). "A finding is clearly erroneous if the appellate court is
left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. at 654-655.

The objective in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the
parties so that neither will be impoverished; "alimony is to based on what is just and reasonable
under the circumstances of the case." Olson, supra. Factors that a trial court should consider
include:
(1) the past relations and conduct of the parties,
(2) the length of the marriage,
(3)the abilities of the parties to work,
(4) the source and amount of property awarded
to the parties,
(5) the parties’ ages,
(6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony,
(7) the present situation of the parties,
(8) the needs of the parties,
(9) the parties’ health,
(10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is
responsible for the support of others,
(11) contributions of the parties to the joint estate,
(12) a party’s fault in causing the divorce,
(13) the effect of cohabitation on
a party’s financial status, and
(14) general principles of equity. [Id.]
In this case, the trial court expressly confirmed that it considered appropriate factors in its
decision.
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the trial court did not err when it chose to use the
income amounts calculated by this Court in its earlier opinion.
Spousal support may be
calculated based on the parties’ income at the time of the judgment of divorce. Anything else
would result in an improper retroactive modification of support. MCL. 552.603(2).
Furthermore, the evidence supports the conclusion that nothing had significantly changed
since this Court’s previous opinion.
Neither party offered compelling evidence that any amounts should be revised. Specifically, the record reflects that plaintiff earns approximately $11,269, inclusive of the State subsidy.
This is roughly equal to this Court’s determination of $10,972 in
its earlier opinion. The evidence also shows that plaintiff earned approximately $36,900 from
May 2006 to May 2007. Again, this is roughly equal to the $37,400 income this Court attributed
to him in its prior opinion.
As indicated, the trial court had the discretion to fashion spousal support payments.
Olson, supra at 631. The court properly considered "the respective incomes of the parties, the
ability of plaintiff to pay spousal support and the needs of defendant given the medical care
constraints placed upon her by the parties’ minor child’s illness and disability."
Based on these considerations, which are supported by the record, along with the income calculations, the trial court’s decision to award $550 per month in spousal support was not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
[This material is from a electronically distributed ruling but is modified for media presentation. Do not rely on its contents without seeking the advice of an attorney. My changes are in CAP HEADLINES of boxed[]. Deleted material shown as ...-Terry Bankert]
Posted here by
Terry Bankert