Keeney v. Keeney

• Decision Date: 01 October 1964
• Docket Number: No. 28,28
• Citation: 374 Mich. 660,133 N.W.2d 199
• Parties: Modell KEENEY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lloyd E. KEENEY, Defendant and Appellant. ,
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 199

133 N.W.2d 199

374 Mich. 660

Modell KEENEY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lloyd E. KEENEY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 28, Oct. Term, 1964.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 1, 1965.

Owen Dudley, Jackson, H. Attix Kinch, Jackson, of counsel, for plaintiff and appellee.

Haskell L. Nichols and Bruce A. Clark, Jackson, for defendant and appellant.

Before the Entire Bench.

O'HARA, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying a rehearing or in the alternative a new trial.

The action for divorce, while contested of record, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, without contest. The divorce was granted and a property settlement was approved upon an oral stipulation on the record made on the hearing date, by the attorneys for the respective parties, both of whom were present. Each party stated, on the record, that each had heard the stipulated division of property and each was satisfied therewith. The judgment was entered November 12, 1963. It contained the stipulated settlement, which was detailed even to the division of pots and pans.

From inception of the action until hearing date, a variety of pleadings were filed. In many of them, including the answer, defendant charged plaintiff with secreting and wrongfully disposing of funds, ousting of defendant from operation of a nursing home business, maintained by the parties, depriving him of knowledge of such operation, conversion of funds, and other acts of similar character which allegedly precluded defendant from knowing the extent of property involved.

Additionally, defendant filed a prehearing motion to require plaintiff to permit defendant 'inspection of all business records, accounts and ledgers.' This petition was predicated on the claim that plaintiff had misappropriated funds belonging to the parties and had mismanaged their financial affairs.

Some 17 days after judgment, defendant, by new counsel, filed a motion for rehearing or new trial. This motion redenied guilt of extreme cruelty and claimed subsequently acquired knowledge that plaintiff had fraudulently concealed profits and a substantial sum of money.

The trial court filed an opinion in which he declined to grant the relief sought. We are in accord with his findings and quote in part from his decision:

'The pleadings filed by the defendant contain the same charges which he now makes in his motion for a rehearing or new trial. The counter complaint of defendant charged the plaintiff with secreting the business account, refusing him inspection and freezing him out of his interest in the business. His motion to compel production of business records and discovery charged the plaintiff with secreting all bank accounts, misappropriating funds and failing to produce an account of all income and disbursements belonging to the home. Defendant's answer to the complaint charged the plaintiff with removing funds, placing accounts in her sole name, secreting funds, mismanaging the business, coming into court with unclean hands. Defendant's petition for an order to show cause charged the plaintiff openly and admittedly of spending and diverting funds of the parties to her own personal use.

'In the face of these facts, the parties, together with their then counsel,...