Regina M Bergh v. Carl E Bergh
329152
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Married in 1981, 33-year marriage, two adult children; divorce filed February 2015; trial focused on spousal support, not remarriage or property split.
- Plaintiff (CPA; CFO at UPHP) earned substantially more than defendant (MDOC retiree); trial court found plaintiff able to pay and defendant with limited earning potential.
- Trial court ordered modifiable spousal support of $2,000/month for six years; determined plaintiff’s income exceeded defendant’s by about $100,000/year and considered defendant’s health issues and retirement.
- Court found defendant capable of some work but not at plaintiff’s level; noted defendant’s psychiatric issues but not a total barrier to employment; no coercive change in circumstances documented.
- Judgment of divorce incorporated a spousal support order, sale of the marital home, and offsets for property; daughter’s college loan debt (~$30,000) to be paid from home-sale proceeds.
- Home sold for $275,000; $35,036 paid to Navient to satisfy the daughter’s college debt; issues on jurisdiction mootness addressed on appeal; plaintiff awarded certain property and defendant received retirement plan interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six years of spousal support at $2,000/month is just and reasonable | Bergh argues the award should be permanent or higher given age, health, length of marriage, and income disparity. | Bergh contends a higher, longer-lasting support obligation is warranted due to health, reduced earning capacity, and disparity. | Six years at $2,000/month deemed just and reasonable; no clear error. |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order payment of the daughter's college loan from sale proceeds | Bergh asserts the court had jurisdiction to allocate such debt from home-sale proceeds. | Bergh contends jurisdictional defect existed and the debt should not be imposed via the home sale. | Issue deemed moot after loan was paid from home-sale proceeds; appellate decline to rule on substantive jurisdiction. |
| Whether defendant’s employment prospects and health justify the spousal support order | Bergh argues plaintiff’s income and employment prospects warrant ongoing support balance. | Bergh asserts health and age limit employment; trial court should have offset with greater support or permanence. | Appellate panel found no abuse of discretion; defendant not shown to be unable to obtain work compatible with health and experience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich App 21 (2012) (multifactor spousal-support analysis; no fixed formula)
- Woodington v. Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Friend v. Friend, 486 Mich 1035 (2010) (rehabilitative purpose of spousal support; no rigid formula)
- Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich 573 (2008) (statutory jurisdiction limits of divorce courts)
- Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (2005) (jurisdictional review de novo; statutory limits)
- Federated Publications, Inc. v. Lansing, 467 Mich 98 (2002) (mootness principle; appellate refusal to decide moot issues)