Loutts v. Loutts
298 Mich. App. 21
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Judgment of divorce entered after a bench trial; issues raised on appeal include fees, spousal support, and noncompete terms.
- Trial court failed to address defendant’s request for attorney and expert fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a).
- Court initially treated the business value as usable for either property division or spousal support, not both.
- Court imputed plaintiff’s income at $130,000 for spousal support calculations and awarded defendant $1,510/month for four years.
- Trial court imposed a three-year noncompete restricting defendant from competing with QPhotonics, LLC as part of the property distribution.
- Court remands for reconsideration of attorney/expert fees, and for redetermination of spousal support and the scope of the noncompete, with findings on fault and adult son support reaffirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney and expert fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) | Myland: defendant unable to pay; fees necessary | defendant unable to pay; fees warranted | Remanded to address fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) |
| Imputation of income for spousal support | Court properly imputed higher income for fairness | imputation of $130,000 inconsistent with business value | Remanded to recalculate spousal support with proper income basis (initially $130,000 discussed; later guidance indicates $34,000 as imputable) |
| Double dipping in valuing business for property vs. spousal support | Using business value for both assets and support is fair | Double-dipping results in inequitable outcome | Bright-line rule rejected; remand to reevaluate spousal support incorporating equities |
| Noncompete restriction | Restriction necessary for equitable distribution | Overbroad restraint of trade | Upheld on equitable grounds; remanded for further proceedings without wholesale reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Myland v Myland, 290 Mich App 691 (2010) (abuse of discretion for failing to consider fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) in divorce)
- Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420 (2003) (divorce asset distribution and need for equitable relief)
- McCallister v McCallister, 205 Mich App 84 (1994) (pensions and spousal support; case-by-case approach to support from assets)
- Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619 (2003) (factors guiding spousal support and equity considerations)
- Stoltman v Stoltman, 170 Mich App 653 (1988) (case-by-case analysis for spousal support and equitable distribution)