Lynna Eising v. Dale Eising
333474
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Parties married over 35 years; both were 55 at divorce. Plaintiff worked as a school lead cook (9 months/year); defendant worked as a car salesman paid largely by commission/bonuses and worked long hours.
- Plaintiff asked for $3,000/month in modifiable spousal support until age 67; trial court awarded $1,000/month for five years.
- The parties’ financial situation: defendant earned significantly more but income was variable; plaintiff could take limited summer work; both were found capable of full-time work.
- Property division: plaintiff received her public-school pension and half of defendant’s Consumer’s Energy pension; defendant received his 401(k) and was assigned several debts (personal loan, line of credit used for 2014 taxes, daughter’s car loan) plus his share of 2015 tax liability.
- Trial court split the 2015 tax debt; plaintiff argued she should not bear half because the tax arose after separation, was attributable to defendant’s withholding choices on bonuses, and she lacked ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support amount/duration | Eising: award $3,000/month until 67; $1,000 for 5 years is insufficient and trial court failed to make adequate findings | Trial court: $1,000/month for 5 years is supported by factors (ages, earning abilities, equal property split, ability to work) | Affirmed — $1,000/month for five years was not inequitable; trial court made adequate findings and did not clearly err |
| Allocation of 2015 tax debt | Eising: tax arose while living separate, primarily due to defendant’s failure to withhold; inequitable to split because she cannot pay her share | Trial court: overall property/debt division is equitable when viewed together; splitting the 2015 tax debt fits the overall allocation | Affirmed — in context of whole property division, splitting the 2015 tax debt was fair and equitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich. App. 619 (2003) (factors and standard for awarding spousal support)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (2008) (appellate review: factual findings for spousal support reviewed for clear error; dispositional rulings for equity)
- Woodington v. Shokoohi, 288 Mich. App. 352 (2010) (requirement that trial court articulate findings to allow meaningful appellate review)
- Myland v. Myland, 290 Mich. App. 691 (2010) (no strict formula for spousal support amount)
- Gates v. Gates, 256 Mich. App. 420 (2003) (goal of equitable property division)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141 (1992) (factors for dividing marital assets and debts)
- Byington v. Byington, 224 Mich. App. 103 (1997) (significance of Sparks factors varies by case)