Hodge v. Parks
303 Mich. App. 552
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Married in 1998; husband owns a steel business, wife worked for General Motors and served as an officer in husband's company.
- A 2011 trial court order addressed property division, spousal support, and marital debt; both parties appealed parts of the order.
- Plaintiff challenges: (a) Raymond James account is premarital and not marital; (b) sailboat is defendant's separate property; (c) overall property division inequitable.
- Defendant cross-appeals challenging a $50,000 gift characterization to plaintiff's children and asserts the division is inequitable in plaintiff's favor.
- Court reverses sailboat as separate property only if postnuptial agreement is enforced; otherwise affirms rest of property division and remands for sailboat disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Raymond James account is marital or premarital | Plaintiff contends commingling makes it marital property. | Account is premarital and properly accounted for; no commingling changes character. | Account remains premarital; no reversible error. |
| Whether sailboat is marital or separate property | Postnuptial agreement contemporaneous with reconciliation makes sailboat marital. | Sailboat is premarital and separate property. | Sailboat is marital; remand to determine equitable disposition. |
| Whether the overall property division was equitable | Division favors defendant; seeks greater share due to MS and debts. | Division is fair given assets, debts, and anticipated support. | Property division affirmed in part; remand on sailboat; overall distribution considered equitable. |
| Whether the $50,000 to plaintiff's children was a gift | Funds should be treated as loan or owed due to family ties. | Transfer was a gift; should not invert distribution. | Trial court did not clearly err; treated as gift. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v Cunningham, 289 Mich App 195 (2010) (clear error standard for property division; evaluate marital versus separate property)
- Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352 (2010) (standard of review for dispositional rulings in property division)
- Rockwell v Estate of Rockwell, 24 Mich App 593 (1970) (postnuptial agreements may be enforced to keep marriage together)
- Wright v Wright, 279 Mich App 291 (2008) (postnuptial agreements not per se invalid; consider equity and public policy)
- Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) (factors for equitable distribution; court may weigh multiple considerations)
- Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30 (1993) (concealment of assets does not automatically forfeit property right)
- Skelly v Skelly, 286 Mich App 578 (2009) (allow invasion of separate assets when maintenance or support is inadequate)