Polate v. Polate, 24
| Decision Date | 03 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 24,24 |
| Citation | 331 Mich. 652,50 N.W.2d 190 |
| Parties | POLATE v. POLATE |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Mann & Ash, Port Huron, for appellee.
Duncan J. McColl, Jr., Port Huron, Robert J. Wojcinski, Detroit, of counsel, for appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is a divorce case. The only question raised is whether the alimony award and property division is inequitable and unfair.
Plaintiff was granted a divorce, custody of their minor child, $10 per week for support of said minor, and $10 per week alimony for her own support and maintenance. In the decree she was also awarded the automobile and household furniture and fixtures then in her possession, and in lieu of dower an undivided half interest as tenant in common in a certain appartment house in Detroit owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties. The defendant was awarded an automobile and household furniture and fixtures then in his possession, a vacant lot in Wayne County, an undivided half interest as tenant in common in the aforesaid apartment house, and all interest in all life insurance, endowment or annuity policies. The defendant appeals.
The parties were married in 1936 and separated in 1945. The defendant owned the vacant lot and the apartment house at the time of the marriage. They both value the vacant lot at about $2,000, appellant values the apartment house at $7,000 or $8,000 while plaintiff considers it worth about $12,000. Both parcels are unencumbered. During the marriage the defendant put the title to the apartment house into a tenancy by the entireties with his wife but remained the sole owner of the vacant lot.
The gist of appellant's claim that the court awarded too much property to the plaintiff is that he expended about $9,000 in work and equipment on a farm owned by plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff lived with her mother on the farm, the defendant lived in the apartment in Detroit and came out to the farm on week ends. He claims he contributed about $9,000 to the farm and she testified that he did not spend a lot of money on equipment and that he didn't do any farm work at all. However that may be, it is his theory that the expenditures he made on plaintiff's mother's farm should be charged against plaintiff in considering the award of alimony or property to the plaintiff in the divorce decree. His theory is based on the fact that plaintiff's mother died about a month before the divorce case was tried, leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir-at-law, wherefore she would become the sole owner of the farm. Plaintiff's mother's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller, Docket No. 77-659
...interest is contingent or a mere expectancy it may not be distributed pursuant to a divorce judgment. See, generally, Polate v. Polate, 331 Mich. 652, 50 N.W.2d 190 (1951). Cases from other jurisdictions are in accord with this In Tucker v. Tucker, supra, the New Jersey court held that a hu......
- Howland v. Local Union 306, UAW-CIO, UAW-CIO
-
Dolgy's Estate v. Polate
...to live on the farm until August, 1948. Claimant was separated from Alice Polate in 1945. They were later divorced. See Polate v. Polate, 331 Mich. 652, 50 N.W.2d 190. Anna Dolgy died in August, 1948, and Alice Polate was appointed administratrix of her mother's estate. Claimant filed a cla......
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 2935
...C.J.S. Divorce § 295(2), n. 51 (1959) and cases cited. These cases do not deal with the expectancy of an inheritance. In Polate v. Polate, 331 Mich. 652, 50 N.W.2d 190, it was held that the court rightly disregarded an expectancy of an inheritance when the estate was not yet settled and it ......