Marcia Marie McFarlane v. Dale Donald McFarlane
329203
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Michigan Court of Appeals case involving a 33-year marriage ending in divorce; three adult children; defendant Dale McFarlane employed as a gas mechanic; plaintiff Marcia McFarlane with health issues and Social Security disability since 2009/2012.
- Trial court awarded plaintiff $2,000/month spousal support until defendant turns 65 or other triggers; defendant received the marital home and 50% of its equity ($37,500).
- Each party to bear own attorney fees; plaintiff cross-appeals challenging amount/duration of support, home valuation, and absence of fees; defendant cross-appeals challenging the award.
- Record showed plaintiff’s limited work capacity due to health and age; defendant’s income included overtime; trial court’s support ruling contained a mathematical error affecting the income disparity analysis.
- Appeals court affirms most rulings but remands for reconsideration of spousal support based on corrected income calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal support award was an abuse of discretion | McFarlane argues support is too low/temporary given needs | McFarlane contends award appropriately balances fault and earnings | Partially upheld; remanded for recalculation due to math error. |
| Whether income should be imputed to plaintiff for support | Plaintiff should be imputed income to reflect earning potential | No clear unexercised ability to earn; imputation unwarranted | Trial court did not abuse discretion in not imputing income. |
| Whether there was a mathematical error in calculating income disparity | Error misrepresented defendant's net income | calculations were correct or harmless | Remand required to recompute based on correct figures. |
| Whether the marital home valuation was supported and properly admitted evidence | SEV should be used; home value undervalued | Real estate testimony supports value; SEV less reliable | Valuation within range; no abuse of discretion; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Gates, 256 Mich App 420 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard for alimony; equity-based approach)
- Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich App 21 (2012) (imputation of income; considerations under earnings potential)
- Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich App 619 (2003) (factors for spousal support; equitable balance)
- Woodington v. Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; credibility and fact findings)
- Korth v. Korth, 256 Mich App 286 (2003) (require specific factual findings on relevant factors)
- Richards v. Richards, 310 Mich App 683 (2015) (modification of support; modification standard)
- Jansen v. Jansen, 205 Mich App 169 (1994) (valuation of assets; range of proof)