Cynthia Lou Guiles v. Kevin James Guiles
332581
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Parties divorced after a 23-year marriage; trial court awarded plaintiff Cynthia Guiles spousal support of $3,000/month for 10 years.
- Defendant Kevin Guiles appealed, arguing the award was excessive and that plaintiff’s earning capacity and access to assets (401k) should reduce support.
- Trial court found plaintiff more credible than defendant, concluding defendant controlled finances, limited plaintiff’s opportunities, and left her without transportation; plaintiff lived with friends and had little income.
- Trial court considered the recognized spousal-support factors (length of marriage, earning ability, health, needs, contributions, etc.) and declined to impute a specific income to plaintiff beyond finding she could earn limited, low-wage income.
- Trial court allocated 100% of plaintiff’s accrued uninsured healthcare debt to defendant; debts were largely incurred while defendant was the family’s sole financial provider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support award (amount/duration) was proper | Support of $3,000/month for 10 years was just and necessary given needs and disparity | Award excessive; trial court should have reduced award by imputing more earning capacity to plaintiff (argues $1,800 appropriate) | Affirmed: trial court’s award within reasonable range; not inequitable or an abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court clearly erred in factual findings/credibility | Plaintiff maintained testimony and corroboration; court credited her | Defendant challenged credibility and disputed factual findings | Affirmed: trial court’s credibility-based findings not clearly erroneous; appellate court defers to trial court |
| Whether court should have imputed income or considered 401k value for support | Plaintiff: court may consider income generated from assets but not principal; 401k not preretirement support | Defendant: plaintiff could access 401k and should be imputed income/reduced support | Affirmed: court properly considered plaintiff’s limited ability to work and income from assets, did not err in refusing to treat 401k principal as income source |
| Allocation of uninsured healthcare debt to defendant | Plaintiff: allocating debt to defendant equitable because debts incurred while he was sole financial provider | Defendant: assignment unfair given support award and plaintiff’s ability to work | Affirmed: trial court’s allocation equitable in context; not shown to be inequitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (2012) (no rigid formula for spousal support; factors guide award)
- Woodington v. Shokoohi, 288 Mich. App. 352 (2010) (trial court discretion and range-of-reasonableness review)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (2008) (appellate review: avoid reversal unless firmly convinced award is inequitable)
- Myland v. Myland, 290 Mich. App. 691 (2010) (no rigid formulas; review of factual findings for clear error)
- Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791 (1990) (burden on appellant to show trial court error)
- Butgereit v. Butgereit, 8 Mich. App. 246 (1967) (credibility findings by trial court are accorded deference)
- Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich. App. 619 (2003) (14-factor framework for spousal support considerations)
- Gates v. Gates, 256 Mich. App. 420 (2003) (consider income produced by assets, not principal value)
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich. App. 706 (2011) (same principle: income from assets vs. asset value)
- Sands v. Sands, 442 Mich. 30 (1993) (appellate standard for reviewing equitable property division)
- Butler v. Simmons-Butler, 308 Mich. App. 195 (2014) (property division includes allocation of marital debts)