SAGINAW SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND DIVORCE, LAWYER COMMENTS

SAGINAW DIVORCE REVIEWED BY ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT A DIVORCE LAWYER. For immediate help with your family law questions call 810-235-1970.




THE SAGINAW SPOUSAL SUPPORT DIVORCE CASE



CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.

Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010

Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.

Trial Court Judge Robert L. Kaczarek
Lower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM

(This opinion has been modified for media presentation)

To see original document, http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20100504_c288923_61_288923opn.pdf






SAAD, J.

Plaintiff Cheri Woodington appeals the trial court’s judgment of divorce. She argues that the trial court made inadequate findings of fact in regard to the value of marital property, the date of valuation, and the status of certain assets as marital or separate property. She also raises issues concerning discovery, spousal support, and attorney fees. Defendant Kamran Shokoohi cross-appeals and contends that the trial court erred in failing to divide the property in accordance with the parties’ prenuptial agreement. We affirm some aspects of the trial court’s judgment; however, because the inadequacy of the trial court’s findings on several of these matters precludes meaningful appellate review, we remand for further proceedings.

I. SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in awarding her alimony in gross in lieu of the spousal support she sought. She also contends that the trial court failed to make findings of fact in support of this decision. We find that the trial court’s failure to make relevant findings precludes review of this decision, and we remand to the trial court for further findings.

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 where the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). The trial court’s findings of fact relating to an award of spousal support are reviewed for clear error. Moore v Moore, 242 Mich App 652, 654; 619 NW2d 723 (2000).

“In deciding a divorce action, the circuit court must make findings of fact and dispositional rulings.” McDougal v McDougal, 451 Mich 80, 87; 545 NW2d 357 (1996). This Court must first review the trial court’s findings of fact. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 151; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). Findings of fact, such as a trial court’s valuation of particular marital assets, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Beason v Beason, 435 Mich 791, 805; 460 NW2d 207 (1990). A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id.; Johnson v Johnson, 276 Mich App 1, 10-11; 739 NW2d 877 (2007). Special deference is given to the trial court’s findings when they are based on the credibility of the witnesses. Draggoo v Draggoo, 223 Mich App 415, 429; 566 NW2d 642 (1997). The determination of the proper time for valuation of an asset is in the trial court’s discretion. Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420, 427; 664 NW2d 231 (2003). If the trial court’s findings of fact are upheld, the appellate court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of those facts. Sparks, 440 Mich at 151-152. “The court’s dispositional ruling should be affirmed unless this Court is left with the firm conviction that the division was inequitable.” Pickering v Pickering, 268 Mich App 1, 7; 706 NW2d 835 (2005).

Plaintiff sought spousal support in the amount of $55,000 annually (rounded to $4,600 monthly) until the parties’ younger child began attending high school, which would enable plaintiff to continue her status as a full-time stay-at-home mom until the children completed middle school. Defendant stated in his trial brief that he would be willing to pay spousal support in the amount of $55,000 per year for two years.

The objective of spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties in a way that will not impoverish either party, and support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 726; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). Among the factors that a court should consider are: (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 support; (7) the present situation of the parties; (8) the needs of the parties; (9) the parties’ health; (10) the parties’ prior standard of living 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. at 726-727.

Plaintiff says that the trial court abused its discretion because it essentially denied her spousal support, and opted instead to award her alimony in gross, “a division of property.” 1 The trial court did not explain its reasons for awarding alimony in gross, its reasons for awarding the specific amount of alimony in gross, or its reasons for denying plaintiff’s request for periodic spousal support subject to modification under MCL 552.28. Accordingly, we are unable to discern why the court believed that this decision was appropriate for the parties’ circumstances. The trial court could have ordered spousal support or an award of property called “alimony in gross” but, to support its dispositional ruling, the court was required to make findings of fact that are susceptible to appellate review. Because the trial court failed to provide its analysis or reasoning to its decision to award alimony in gross and deny plaintiff’s request for spousal support, we must reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court make findings of fact appropriate for judicial review.

Posted here by

Terry Bankert

http://attorneybankert.com/

see

[1]



CHERI L. WOODINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v KAMRAN SHOKOOHI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.

Docket No(s) 288923, Published 05/04/2010

Trial Court/lower Court Saginaw County Circuit Court.

Trial Court Judge Robert L. Kaczarek
Lower Court Docket No(s) LC No. 06-060841-DM





[2]

CAP HEADLINES OR (trb)

Terry Bankert

http://attorneybankert.com/

MISC

FOOTNOTES

1 Staple v Staple, 241 Mich App 562, 566; 616 NW2d 219 (2000). We note that the holding in Staple is inapplicable because Staple applies “to judgments entered pursuant to the parties’ own negotiated settlement agreements, not to alimony provisions of a judgment entered after an adjudication on the merits.” Id. at 569.