Antonette R Grant v. Al Troy Grant
371283
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Antonette R. Grant (aka Antonette R. Newsom) and defendant Al Troy Grant were married in 2011 and share four children.
- Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2023, seeking sole legal and physical custody of the three minor children and division of marital property.
- Plaintiff asserted defendant was abusive, did not meaningfully support the marriage, and had a poor relationship with the children, and that she purchased the marital home with student loans in her name.
- Defendant counterclaimed for divorce, disputed the abuse allegations, and claimed a stake in both properties (Detroit and Jamaica).
- After trial, the court awarded plaintiff sole legal and physical custody, the entirety of the marital property (Detroit and Jamaica properties), and ordered supervised parenting time for defendant subject to plaintiff's discretion, with all property debt assigned to defendant.
- Defendant appealed the custody, parenting time, and property division rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody (sole legal/physical) | Plaintiff should have sole custody due to defendant's abuse and poor relationship with children. | Custody should not be removed; plaintiff's allegations are false and she has moved children multiple times. | Affirmed in favor of plaintiff (sole custody), but court noted trial court erred in weighing factor (d). |
| Supervised Parenting Time | Defendant poses risk of abuse; supervised time only under plaintiff's discretion is appropriate. | Supervision unjustified; plaintiff's claims about abuse are not credible or supported. | Affirmed supervised parenting time, but clarified that modification is subject to judicial, not just plaintiff’s, discretion. |
| Property Division | Plaintiff should receive the Detroit and Jamaica properties because she purchased them and contributed more. | Properties are marital and his renovations/contributions entitle him to an interest; debt allocation unfair. | Vacated and remanded; trial court failed to make required findings on existence, value, and equitable distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (custody findings are affirmed unless evidence clearly preponderates the other way)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich. 1994) (moral fitness as a best interest factor in custody)
- Demski v. Petlick, 309 Mich. App. 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (continuity of environment in custody analysis)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (equitable, not necessarily equal, property division)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141 (Mich. 1992) (listing property division factors and requirement for findings)
- Sands v. Sands, 442 Mich. 30 (Mich. 1993) (avoiding punitive property awards)