Rodene Joy Cassidy v. Robert Francis Cassidy Jr
333319
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2017Background
- Rodene Cassidy filed for divorce after discovering Robert Cassidy’s long-term affair with Mary Hansen and transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hansen to buy and remodel a Fenton property (East Ellen House).
- Robert admitted transferring at least $364,000 to Hansen (plus $70,000 from a company he managed); he later characterized the transfers as loans repayable to him.
- Trial court found Robert and Hansen conspired to defraud Rodene of her marital share, imposed a constructive trust on the East Ellen property, and included those transfers in the marital estate.
- The court imputed $100,000 annual income to Robert, awarded spousal support to Rodene, and ordered Robert to pay Rodene $150,619.88 in attorney fees based on his conduct and her inability to pay.
- Post-judgment, Robert was held in civil contempt for failing to pay support, the property-settlement installments, and attorney fees; the court ordered 10 days’ weekend incarceration subject to purge by payment.
- Appeals: Hansen (as third party) challenged application of the UFTA and denial of a jury trial; Robert appealed spousal support, property division (including tax liability), attorney-fee award; Robert also challenged contempt/jail on due-process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodene) | Defendant's Argument (Robert/Hansen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could adjudicate third-party (Hansen) interests in divorce and apply equitable remedies (constructive trust) | The court may, in equity, determine third-party claims when a spouse conspired to defraud the other; relief is incidental to division of marital estate | Hansen: UFTA does not apply because Rodene was not a creditor at time of transfers; Hansen demanded a jury on the UFTA claim | Held for Rodene: court has equitable power in divorce to adjudicate third-party participation in conspiracy; no jury right for these equitable divorce-incidental claims; constructive trust proper |
| Application of UFTA and scope of recovery from Hansen (including ConRadical funds) | Transfers (including company-derived funds) were marital funds funneled to Hansen and may be recaptured as part of the marital estate | Hansen: UFTA inapplicable; trial court exceeded authority by including ConRadical $70,000 and awarding more than loan amount | Held for Rodene: court treated ConRadical funds as marital money (wages) and included them in lien; remedy fashioned equitably in divorce was appropriate |
| Spousal support and income imputation (amount/duration) | Spousal support necessary given Rodene’s age, health, retirement income, prior standard of living, and Robert’s greater earning ability; impute income to Robert | Robert argued imputation/award was unfair or excessive | Held for Rodene: trial court’s factual findings supported imputation to $100,000 (which Robert had requested) and award was not an abuse of discretion |
| Attorney fees award and contempt/jail (reasonableness, basis, due process) | Fees awarded under MCR 3.206 and statutes because Rodene could not afford litigation and fees resulted from Robert’s misconduct; civil contempt incarceration lawful and purgeable | Robert: fees unrelated to divorce or owed by him; lacked evidentiary hearing on fee reasonableness; contempt order deprived him of due process and written order harsher than oral pronouncement | Held for Rodene: trial court properly awarded fees (record supported rates/hours; misconduct and inability to pay shown); contempt was civil, defendant had notice of possible incarceration and ability-to-pay findings supported the sanction; written order controls and did not deny due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich 573 (exception allowing joinder of third parties alleged to conspire with a spouse to defraud the other spouse)
- Berg v. Berg, 336 Mich 284 (divorce court equity jurisdiction when third party conspires to defraud spouse)
- Smela v. Smela, 141 Mich App 602 (limitations on third-party intervention absent conspiracy claim)
- Donahue v. Donahue, 134 Mich App 696 (trial court may adjudicate third-party asset claims when evidence and participation allow)
- Wiand v. Wiand, 178 Mich App 137 (same; conspiracy exception permits inclusion of third-party assets in marital estate)
- Thames v. Thames, 191 Mich App 299 (equity court may treat transfers to third parties as fraud on marital rights and include trust assets)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich 141 (principles and factors governing equitable division of marital property)
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. E. China Twp. Sch., 443 Mich 176 (constructive trust may be imposed to prevent unjust enrichment; equity principles)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (framework for calculating reasonable attorney fees)
- Moore v. Moore, 242 Mich App 652 (permitting imputation of income for spousal support when income voluntarily reduced)
- Richards v. Richards, 310 Mich App 683 (standards for awarding attorney fees in divorce and court-rule bases)
- In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich 81 (distinction between criminal and civil contempt; civil contempt as coercive/purgeable sanction)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (due-process considerations where incarceration for civil contempt is possible)