Richards v. Richards
310 Mich. App. 683
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Married December 20, 1980; both 53 at divorce; husband diagnosed with Parkinson’s and unable to practice medicine.
- Wife is a registered nurse who left work in 1989; pursued education to teach nursing; household income substantial.
- Parties amassed major assets: Gladstone home (~$650k), Houghton home (~$225k), significant bank savings, BayCare control.
- Husband received disability and BayCare distributions totaling ~$22k monthly; social security disability payments also received.
- Temporary and final orders: equal spousal share initially; later orders increased wife’s living expenses; trial court awarded 55/45 asset split and six-year spousal support.
- Plaintiff sought attorney fees for defendant’s noncompliance; court denied; amended judgment entered December 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six-year spousal support violates MCL 552.28 | Richards argues six-year term is improper as fixed and nonmodifiable. | Richards contends six-year term is permissible under trial court’s discretion. | Six-year cap must be vacated; support may be modifiable under MCL 552.28. |
| Whether spousal support award was proper given incomes and health | Richards maintains support facilitates self-sufficiency and education. | Richards claims plaintiff financially stable; support punitive. | Support awarded; court’s discretion upheld to foster work reentry. |
| Whether property division was inequitable | Richards argues 55/45 split and home allocations are fair given fault and contributions. | Richards contends 51/49 more appropriate. | Courtwide equitable distribution; no clear error; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether there were calculation errors in support and BayCare distributions | Richards alleges miscalculation harmed marital estate valuation. | Richards asserts numerical errors in allowances and distributions. | No plain error found; some disputes remanded for clarity and potential adjustments. |
| Whether attorney fees should be awarded under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(b) | Richards incurred fees due to defendant’s failure to follow court orders. | Richards disputes fee basis and amount; seeks no fees. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing; separate bases for fees clarified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard for alimony decisions)
- Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619 (2003) (factors for alimony and equity considerations)
- Moore v Moore, 242 Mich App 652 (2000) (balance incomes and needs; support to enable self-sufficiency)
- Friend v Friend, 486 Mich 1035 (2010) (economic self-sufficiency as a goal of alimony)