Mayer v. Mayer, 87.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 87.,87. |
| Citation | 266 Mich. 241,253 N.W. 282 |
| Parties | MAYER v. MAYER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County, in Chancery; George W. Sample, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Martha Mayer against Junius J. Mayer. From that part of the divorce decree which divided the property, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Jacob F. Fahrner and Andrew J. Sawyer, both of Ann Arbor, for appellant.
Frank B. DeVine, of Ann Arbor, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from that part of a decree of divorce dividing the property.
The parties lived together contentedly for about 25 years. Their separation and divorce were caused by the relations of defendant with a woman whom he met in Detroit about 2 years ago, and for whom he was willing to leave his family and home. The parties have one child, a son 26 years old, underdeveloped mentally, able to do much simple farm work, but needing direction and personal care. He lives with his mother.
The parties have always lived on a farm. Both are industrious and frugal, and, except for defendant's lapse, bear excellent reputations. Defendant also has established a business in sale of tractors and farm implements, which he conducted from the homestead.
The family home is a farm of 150 acres, inherited by defendant. He owns also a farm of 40 acres, a half interest in 140 acres, a house and lot in Ann Arbor, and personal property. The court awarded plaintiff the homestead, some live stock, farm tooks, and one automobile, together worth from $15,000 to $18,000, and ordered defendant to pay her $50 per month during her lifetime, with the understanding that, as long as the son makes his home with plaintiff, defendant should not be liable for any additional sum for his support. The property retained by defendant is worth $24,000. He complains that he cannot conduct his tractor business anywhere else than on the homestead, and offered to give plaintiff all the rest of the real estate if he could have the home.
Defendant inherited all the land or purchased it with inherited money. However, plaintiff assisted him in conserving it and in acquiring personal property. The property does not admit of ready division upon the basis of values alone. The proportion of worth of the award to the wife is rather more than is usual. But there is no rigid rule of division, and the security of a living for the wife is a major consideration. It does not appear that the homestead may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rinvelt v. Rinvelt
...552.23 et seq., Sec. 552.101 et seq. (Stat Ann and Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp Sec. 25.103 et seq., Sec. 25.131 et seq.); Mayer v Mayer, 266 Mich 241 [253 N.W. 282 (1934) ]; Robinson v Robinson, 275 Mich 420 [266 N.W. 403 (1936) ]; Montgomery v Montgomery, 221 Mich 31 [190 N.W. 687 (1922) ]. Tha......
-
Ross v. Ross
...of division of property in divorce proceedings, the major consideration being the security of living for the wife. See Mayer v. Mayer (1934), 266 Mich. 241, 253 N.W. 282. * * Each case must be decided upon its own facts. In the instant case practically all of the assets of defendant were ac......
-
Casciola v. Casciola, 41.
...facts involved, the general rule being that such division must be equitable. Allen v. Allen, 196 Mich. 292, 162 N.W. 987;Mayer v. Mayer, 266 Mich. 241, 253 N.W. 282;Robinson v. Robinson, 275 Mich. 420, 266 N.W. 403. In inserting in the decree the clause above quoted the trial court obviousl......
-
Kwiatkowski v. Kwiatkowski, 12
...'There is no rigid rule of division of property and the security of a living for the wife should be a major consideration. Mayer v. Mayer, 266 Mich. 241, 253 N.W. 282. The division must be equitable. Robinson v. Robinson, 275 Mich. 420, 266 N.W. And in Casciola v. Casciola, 317 Mich. 485, 2......