Davey v. Davey
| Decision Date | 20 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 51516 |
| Citation | 106 Mich.App. 579,308 N.W.2d 468 |
| Parties | Marjorie L. DAVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marshall S. DAVEY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Timothy J. Donovan, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellant.
Clifford W. Taylor, Lansing, for defendant-appellee.
Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and ALLEN and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
Plaintiff, Marjorie L. Davey, appeals as of right from an order, pursuant to a judgment of divorce, requiring her to pay one half of an inheritance to defendant.
In the trial court, the parties' assets were divided between the plaintiff and defendant as follows:
MARJORIE DAVEY MARSHALL DAVEY
------------------------ ------------------------
Residence $42,036 Cottage $25,000
Pension 7,919 Pension 4,726
Cemetary Lots 1,800 Insurance 800
Inheritance 25,000 Securities 21,630
Inheritance 25,000
Auto & Personal Auto & Personal
Possessions -0- Possessions -0-
------- -------
Totals $76,755 $77,156
------
This division of property (except as it concerned the inheritance) was in accordance with the wishes of the parties. The plaintiff did not want the defendant to share in any part of the $50,000 inheritance she received from her aunt after the filing of divorce proceedings but prior to the judgment of divorce.
The trial court found that the breakup of the marriage was caused by the plaintiff and, for purposes of the property settlement, the plaintiff was at fault.
As to the division of plaintiff's inheritance, the trial court stated:
Notwithstanding Michigan's no-fault divorce law, fault is still one of many valid considerations in matters of property division and a trial judge's consideration of fault in determining a property division will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Chisnell v. Chisnell, 82 Mich.App. 699, 707, 267 N.W.2d 155 (1978). A determination of property division necessitates an examination of the following factors: duration of marriage, contributions of the parties to the joint estate; and the parties' age, health, station in life, necessities and circumstances, and earning ability. Holbern v. Holbern, 91 Mich.App. 566, 569, 283 N.W.2d 800 (1979). One of the circumstances to be considered in the determination of property division is the fault or misconduct of a party. Chisnell, supra.
The marriage in the instant case lasted over 30 years. At the time of the divorce, both parties were enjoying good physical health. The parties had an equal earning capacity, each earning approximately $18,000 annually. Their "station in life" appears to have been a comfortable one. Both of the parties' children had attained the legal age of majority.
The trial court's division of the plaintiff's separate inheritance was accomplished pursuant to a finding of insufficiency of assets awarded out of the marital estate under M.C.L. § 552.23(1); M.S.A. § 25.103(1). The trial court concluded that the defendant needed additional funds to establish a new residence and otherwise maintain the standard of living he had enjoyed while married.
This Court hears appeals on property division in divorce cases de novo, but does not generally reverse or modify such decisions unless it is convinced that it would have reached another result had it occupied the position of the trial court. McCallister v. McCallister, 101 Mich.App. 543, 549, 300 N.W.2d 629 (1980). Paul v. Paul, 362 Mich. 43, 47, 106 N.W.2d 384 (1960).
Although the trial court stated that it felt plaintiff was at fault in the breakdown of this marriage, the court chose to award an equal amount of marital property to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. Sparks
...Vance v. Vance, 159 Mich.App. 381, 386, 406 N.W.2d 497 (1987) ("fault is not the sole factor to be considered"); Davey v. Davey, 106 Mich.App. 579, 581, 308 N.W.2d 468 (1981) (fault is still one of many valid considerations); Chisnell v. Chisnell, 82 Mich.App. 699, 707, 267 N.W.2d 155 (1978......
-
Parrish v. Parrish, Docket No. 70781
...we are convinced that we would have reached another result had we occupied the position of the trial court. Davey v. Davey, 106 Mich.App. 579, 582, 308 N.W.2d 468 (1981). The trial court has great discretion in the adjustment of property rights. In dividing marital assets, the trial court i......
-
Beard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...marriage by gift, devise, or inheritance). See Charlton v. Charlton, supra; Darwish v. Darwish, supra at 403 n. 1; Davey v. Davey, 106 Mich. App. 579, 308 N.W.2d 468 (1981). Thus, it is clear that under Michigan law, a wife may acquire rights to a share of her husband's separately owned pro......
-
Kurz v. Kurz
...dividing the marital assets or awarding alimony. See Zecchin, supra, 149 Mich.App. pp. 727-729, 386 N.W.2d 652; Davey v. Davey, 106 Mich.App. 579, 581, 308 N.W.2d 468 (1981). In the instant case, the trial court gave the following explanation for awarding defendant The cases dealing with th......