Melissa a Reichenbach v. James W Reichenbach, 326355

Background

Parties married in 1995, filed for divorce in 2013; two children (one minor); plaintiff worked from home raising children, defendant ran family business (William Reichenbach Company) and owned rental real estate.
Parties executed a prenuptial agreement three days before the wedding that identified extensive separate property for each (including defendant’s interest in WRC and various real estate) and stated neither would request property settlement or spousal support with respect to that separate property, but provided that increases in separate-asset value would be marital and divided equally.
Trial court found the prenup valid but invoked equitable powers (MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401) to “invade” some separate property, included invaded separate property in the marital estate, divided the marital estate equally (marital estate valued > $4.2M), and awarded rehabilitative spousal support to plaintiff ($5,000/month for seven years, later reduced).
After trial this Court decided Allard I; defendant sought reconsideration relying on Allard I to limit invasion of separate property; trial court reduced the marital estate by deducting premarital values of WRC and some rental properties and reduced spousal support to $3,000/month for seven years.
On appeal, the Court reviewed valuation of a marital business (Reichenbach Plastering), the scope of prenups as to spousal support and attorney fees, and whether the trial court properly exercised equitable powers to invade separate property and award spousal support.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prenup barred invasion of defendant’s separate property and use for spousal support	Reichenbach: prenup does not prevent court from awarding support under statutes/equity	Reichenbach: prenup controls; Allard I bars invading separate property and awarding spousal support from it	Court: Prenup is valid but does not bar court’s equitable powers under MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401 to invade separate property and award support (Allard II/III framework governs)
Whether trial court properly valued Reichenbach Plastering Company	Plaintiff: trial court valuation (expert-supported) is within range	Defendant: company was winding down; should be valued at trial date and possibly lower	Court: No clear error; court’s valuation was within range and expert considered closure; affirmed
Whether trial court properly exercised equitable invasion of separate property (contribution/need requirements)	Reichenbach: court may consider overall equities and need; award was within discretion	Reichenbach: plaintiff didn’t contribute to premarital property acquisition and had sufficient assets/support; invasion improper	Court: Although evidence didn’t show plaintiff contributed to premarital assets, trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding spousal support under MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401; decision within range of principled outcomes
Whether plaintiff should have been awarded attorney fees	Plaintiff sought fees to pay counsel	Defendant opposed; trial court found plaintiff would go forward debt-free so fees unnecessary	Court: Trial court’s denial of attorney fees was within discretion; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141 (recognizes statutory equitable factors for property division)
Allard v. Allard, 308 Mich. App. 536 (discussed scope of prenups and invasion of separate property)
Allard v. Allard, 499 Mich. 932 (clarified that courts may, in general, exercise equitable powers to invade separate estates despite prenup)
Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791 (standard for reviewing trial-court findings of fact/valuation)
Jansen v. Jansen, 205 Mich. App. 169 (valuation within range of proofs is not clear error)
Barnett v. Hidalgo, 478 Mich. 151 (appellate review requires outcomes within range of principled outcomes)
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., 481 Mich. 419 (discusses when discussion is essential to disposition/dicta)