Myland v. Myland
290 Mich. App. 691
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- This divorce appeal challenges the trial court’s use of an arbitrary spousal-support formula under MCL 552.23 and requires consideration of parties’ unique circumstances.
- The court also evaluates whether MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) requires a needs-based analysis for attorney fees rather than relying on egregious conduct or wasteful litigation.
- The trial court imputed plaintiff's income at $7,000 and awarded $13,875 per year in spousal support using a fixed 0.25 multiplier tied to the 25-year marriage.
- Plaintiff has progressive MS with no meaningful earning potential; defendant is healthy, earning about $62,500 annually, with COBRA costs for plaintiff at $383/month.
- Court found the trial court failed to consider factors like ages, health, abilities to work, needs, prior standard of living, and health-care costs; remand for a comprehensive, needs-based analysis.
- Additionally, the court addresses stipulation regarding a 1969 Pontiac Firebird and concludes there was no binding obligation to sell it to pay marital debt; issues attorney-fee award on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support formula legality | Korth: formula ignores relevant factors. | Court used past practice to guide support. | Rigid formula not allowed; must apply needs-based analysis. |
| Need-based attorney fees | Trial court erred by limiting fees to egregious conduct. | Fees should be denied absent egregious conduct. | Trial court erred; remand to apply proper needs-based analysis. |
| Stipulation enforceability | Firebird sale to pay debts should be enforced. | Firebird not binding as sole property; no sale required. | No binding stipulation; court correctly excluded Firebird from distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619 (2003) (factors for spousal-support review; equity-based approach)
- Korth v Korth, 256 Mich App 286 (2003) (trial court should consider relevant statutory factors)
- Moore v Moore, 242 Mich App 652 (2000) (balance incomes and needs; not impoverish either party)
- Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184 (1993) (ability to pay toward attorney fees; invasion of assets)
- Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420 (2003) (need-based attorney-fee award; explore ability to pay)
- Voukatidis v Voukatidis, 195 Mich App 338 (1992) (health insurance considerations in support orders)