Pusylo v. Pusylo

• Decision Date: 21 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 47.,47.
• Citation: Pusylo v. Pusylo, 279 Mich. 623, 273 N.W. 292 (Mich. 1937)
• Parties: PUSYLO v. PUSYLO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

279 Mich. 623

273 N.W. 292

PUSYLO

v.PUSYLO.

No. 47.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 21, 1937.

Suit by Martha Pusylo against Peter Pusylo. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Ira W. Jayne, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Peirson & Peirson, of Detroit, for appellant.

Nicholas Salowich, of Detroit, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Justice.

In the decree of divorce granted plaintiff, the court found defendant guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty as charged in the bill of complaint. Defendant's sole complaint on appeal is that the division of property under the decree was inequitable. The settled record on appeal has omitted all testimony except such as refers to the property of the parties. However, from the bill of complaint, the admissions in the answer and the statements made by the circuit judge, it appears that the parties lived together approximately twenty one years; that one of their three children is still a minor of the age of fourteen; that the parties acquired property through their joint efforts; and that the plaintiff for a number of years past worked in a factory and turned her wages into the family exchequer. The principal asset consists of an interest in the balance of upwards of $2,000 still due the plaintiff and defendant as joint title owners and vendors in a land contract for the sale of a farm. It is claimed that defendant has collected and kept $682 of payments made on the contract. Under the decree, each party is awarded a one-half interest in the balance due on the contract. Plaintiff is also given an equity in property occupied by herself and children. It consists of a lot improved with a two-family flat, subject to a mortgage of $3,563.63. Taxes for the years 1934 and 1935 were due at the time of the hearing. The friend of the court valued the equity at $1,174.76. Plaintiff was given the household furniture of the value of $150. Defendant was awarded a half interest in the balance due on the land contract and was allowed to retain the $682 he had collected thereon. He also was given equities in lots of the possible value of $464.69. Plaintiff was not awarded any other sums for her maintenance and support, but defendant was ordered to pay her $5 a week for the support, maintenance, and education of the minor child.

The judge stated at the time of the hearing that he was trying to divide the property equally. He referred to a division made by...