Ewald v. Ewald
292 Mich. App. 706
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Marrried in 1993; two children born in 1995 and 1997; divorce filed February 2008 and final judgment November 4, 2009.
- Marital property included farmland with plaintiff holding 14% of Ewald Farms and defendant receiving 64% of 365 acres; buyout terms of $518,000 for defendant's land share.
- Parenting arrangement: son primarily with father, daughter with mother; son’s visits with mother declined; parenting time ordered to be held in abeyance subject to counselor recommendations or further order.
- Income and financials: plaintiff earned about $73,970 (farming salary, land rentals, corporate support); defendant imputed $15,600 income; trial court deviation from MCSF based on alienation finding.
- July 2009 judgment: child support amounts using MCSF would yield $618/month for two children and $383? (approximate figures in record) with ordinary medical; deviation reduced defendant’s obligation and increased plaintiff’s support; post-judgment, a supplemental decision used different parenting-time assumptions.
- Judgment of divorce included uniform child support order; defendant responsible for uninsured medical expenses; spousal support awarded only temporarily pending property distribution; appeal and cross-appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could deviate from the MCSF based on alleged parenting-time interference. | Ewald argues deviation justified to address son’s alienation from mother. | Ewald asserts deviation based on parenting-time interference is not a listed factor under MCSF and improper. | Deviation from MCSF not allowed; only improper under MCSF; remand for calculation without deviation. |
| Whether deviation was used to punish one parent rather than reflect fair shares. | Deviation serves fairness given income and conduct of parties. | Deviation was punitive and not supported by statutory factors. | Deviating to punish is improper; correction required on remand. |
| Whether temporary spousal support award was equitable given property division. | Court should support defendant given assets; spousal support appropriate. | Award was inequitable given income and property division. | Dispositional ruling affirmed; no clear error found; not inequitable. |
| Whether attorney-fee award was properly justified and supported by evidence. | Fees should be paid in full by plaintiff given need and ability to pay. | Defendant entitled to full or greater fee recovery. | Remanded for evidence on need and ability to pay and reasonableness of fees. |
| Whether defendant’s uninsured medical expenses were properly allocated. | Expense allocation should reflect public policy and income. | Expenses should be awarded to defendant. | Claim denied as the expenses were elective; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burba v. Burba (After Remand), 461 Mich 637 (2000) (mandatory deviation criteria; meticulous statement required)
- Stallworth v. Stallworth, 275 Mich App 282 (2007) (presumptive application of MCSF; deference to formula)
- Rzadkowolski v. Pefley, 237 Mich App 405 (1999) (separation of parenting time and child support rights)
- In re Beck, 488 Mich 6 (2010) (parity of parental rights and obligations; support not terminated)
- Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich App 666 (2007) (application of MCSF; abuse of discretion standards)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich 141 (1992) (factors for spousal support; equitable considerations)
- Smith v. Smith, 278 Mich App 198 (2008) (attorney-fee standards; need and ability to pay)