Allard v. Allard
| Decision Date | 25 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | COA No. 308194.,Docket No. 150891. |
| Citation | 499 Mich. 932,878 N.W.2d 888 (Mem) |
| Parties | Earl H. ALLARD, Jr., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Christine A. ALLARD, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REVERSE in part the December 18, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The parties' antenuptial agreement provided, among other things, that certain property acquired during the marriage was to remain the sole and separate property of each party (i.e., part of the party's separate estate), including "[a]ny property acquired in either party's individual capacity or name during the marriage[.]" Despite the antenuptial agreement, the defendant sought to invade the plaintiff's separate estate pursuant to MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401. The Court of Appeals held that MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401 do not "allow a party to invade the other spouse's separate estate contrary to the terms of a valid antenuptial agreement." Allard v. Allard, 308 Mich.App. 536, 558, 867 N.W.2d 866 (2014). We VACATE the Court of Appeals' analysis of this issue. The parties' antenuptial agreement rendered much of the property at issue part of the plaintiff's separate estate. If the antenuptial agreement did nothing more than divide the property between the marital estate and the parties' separate estates, the trial court could exercise its discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401 to invade the plaintiff's separate estate. However, the property settlement in the antenuptial agreement was to be "in full satisfaction, settlement, and discharge of any and all rights or claims of alimony, support, property division, or other rights or claims of any kind, nature, or description incident to marriage and divorce ..., under the present or future statutes and laws of common law of the state of Michigan or any other jurisdiction (all of which are hereby waived and released)." The Court of Appeals did not address whether this statement waived the defendant's ability to seek invasion of the plaintiff's separate estate under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401. Therefore, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider: (1) whether parties may waive the trial court's discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401 through an antenuptial agreement, see, e.g., Staple v. Staple, 241 Mich.App. 562, 616 N.W.2d 219 (2000), but see, e.g., Omne Financial, Inc. v. Shacks, Inc., 460 Mich. 305, 596 N.W.2d 591 (1999), and (2) if so, whether the parties validly waived MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401 in this case.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals erred when it held "to the extent any real property or other assets were acquired during the course of the marriage by the various [limited liability companies] created during the marriage, we find that their disposition in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skaates v. Kayser
... ... 959 N.W.2d 43 "A contract may be deemed unenforceable if it was executed under duress." Allard v. Allard , 308 Mich. App. 536, 551, 867 N.W.2d 866 (2014), rev'd in part on other grounds 499 Mich. 932, 878 N.W.2d 888 (2016). To successfully ... ...
-
Allard v. Allard
...Wilder and Fort Hood, JJ. ON REMAND Wilder, J. This matter returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. Allard v. Allard , 499 Mich. 932, 878 N.W.2d 888 (2016) ( Allard II ). We have been instructed to consider two issues on remand: "(1) whether parties may waive the trial court's discre......
-
Dinsdale v. Staggs
... ... Michigan law against the Dinsdales who were not in any ... special relationship warranting a duty to disclose. See ... Allard v Allard, 308 Mich.App. 536, 551; 867 N.W.2d ... 866 (2014), rev'd in part on other grounds 499 Mich. 932; ... 878 N.W.2d 888 (2016) ... ...
- Mich. Ass'n of Governmental Emps. v. State, Docket No. 147511.