Paul v. Paul

• Decision Date: 02 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 17,17
• Citation: 362 Mich. 43,106 N.W.2d 384
• Parties: Deron F. PAUL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Florence A. PAUL, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 384

106 N.W.2d 384

362 Mich. 43

Deron F. PAUL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Florence A. PAUL, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1960.

Sheldon Rupert, Paw Paw, for appellant.

Williams & Williams, by Lewis R. Williams, Paw Paw, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

EDWARDS, Justice.

After 26 years of marriage, plaintiff-appellee Deron Paul, a Van Buren county farmer, sued his wife for divorce. The husband's bill of complaint charged various acts of cruelty to his wife, all of which she denied in her answer. No cross bill was filed.

At trial defendant wife took the stand but aside from a general denial made no effort to rebut her husband's testimony as to the conduct on her part upon which he relied as grounds for divorce. The circuit judge found:

'The charges made by the plaintiff and testified to by him are supported in part by the testimony of other witnesses. The testimony tending to support plaintiff's claim for a divorce is not seriously controverted, and I have no difficulty in determining from the proofs in this case that the plaintiff has well established his right to a decree of divorce.'

On appeal the only issue presented pertains to the property settlement terms of the divorce decree which awarded the husband $8,000, to be realized--$3,755.32 from cash deposited with the clerk of the court from the proceeds of sale of the farm machinery, and the $4,244.68 balance from a lien upon the farm itself.

The decree provided no support for the appellant wife, and she claims that the decree awards the husband a part of her sole and separate estate without authority to do so.

It is undisputed that the farm belonged to the wife at the time of the marriage of the parties in 1932. It had been deeded to her by her parents and she had paid off the mortgage balance before the marriage to Mr. Paul.

Over and above the farm, the wife also brought rather more financial assets to the marriage than did her husband. He testified that he owned a gasoline station from which he derived $1,300 which he invested in the farm, while the wife testified she brought over $5,000 to the marriage which was likewise invested in the farm.

There is no dispute but that the husband worked full time, and apparently effectively nearly the entire 25 years the couple lived together, improving the farm and making a living for the family from it. There seems little reason to doubt that his efforts added materially to its value.

During these years, the record indicates that the husband managed the farm, handled the income therefrom, and paid the bills for the family. The wife had as her somewhat separate enterprise a chicken and egg business from which she received all the proceeds. The farm provided the grain for this operation. It appears that from time to time the husband expended time and labor on the chicken and egg business, as did the wife on the farm.

We assume from this record that the parties at the time of divorce had either relatively insignificant, or relatively equal, amounts of personal property and cash since no effort was made to have the decree include reference to such assets.

At the time of divorce the only substantial asset considered was the farm, title to which had stood in the wife's name all during the marriage. The circuit judge, recognizing title to the farm in the wife, awarded $8,000 to the husband. He held that the husband had paid for the improvements to the farm, and added 'In fact, if not in law, he actually became a farm hand, and if he received $25 or $30 per month and his board over the period...