Rethman v. Rethman

• Decision Date: 09 March 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 84414
• Citation: Rethman v. Rethman, 401 N.W.2d 314, 156 Mich.App. 74 (Mich. App. 1987)
• Parties: Katherine A. RETHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. RETHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 314

401 N.W.2d 314

156 Mich.App. 74

Katherine A. RETHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.John E. RETHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 84414.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 4, 1986.

Decided Nov. 4, 1986.

Released for Publication March 9, 1987.

W. Gerber Otto, Saginaw, for plaintiff.

Walter Martin, Jr., Saginaw, for defendant.

Before KELLY, P.J., and HOLBROOK and GREEN, ^* JJ.

KELLY, Presiding Judge.

DefendantJohn Rethman appeals as of right from several portions of a divorce judgment entered April 4, 1985.We reverse in part and remand to the trial court for modification as further provided in this opinion.

Plaintiff and defendant were married on December 19, 1958.Three children were born of the marriage, all of whom had reached the age of majority at the conclusion of this divorce action, which was commenced by plaintiff in December of 1982.During the first ten years of the marriage, defendant was employed as a dental technician while plaintiff earned money babysitting and cleaning dental offices.In 1968, defendant opened his own dental lab, making dentures and other devices for dentists in the Saginaw area.Plaintiff initially worked full-time at the lab, in charge of the billings, cleaning and all of the pickups and deliveries.After the first 1 1/2 to 2 years, both parties agreed that plaintiff should reduce her hours at the lab to spend more time with their children.Plaintiff continued working part-time at the business until April of 1983.

After plaintiff filed for divorce, defendant moved out of the marital home.Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the house was placed on the market and sold in September of 1983.During the nine or ten months that plaintiff resided in the marital home pending the divorce, defendant paid all household bills and maintained plaintiff on the parties' joint checking account.After the sale of the house, plaintiff moved into a condominium and defendant began paying her $1,250 per month plus the reasonable costs of tuition, books and miscellaneous fees incurred by plaintiff while she attended college.The proceeds from the sale of the house were split in half.

Prior to the divorce trial, plaintiff submitted over fifty job applications to various employers.She received two offers, both of which she rejected because the jobs required her to move out of town.Instead, plaintiff worked part-time at several jobs and was unemployed at the time of trial.Plaintiff testified that she suffered from a nervous condition for which she was being treated by a clinical psychologist.Otherwise, plaintiff's health was good.

Prior to trial, the parties stipulated to the division of most of the marital property.With the exception of a few pieces, both parties agreed to keep the clothes and furniture that were in their possession at the time of trial.In addition, each party received assets valued at $49,653.Plaintiff received mostly cash as her share of the marital assets whereas the amount received by defendant in cash was approximately $13,000.The parties could not agree on the valuation of the dental lab for purposes of determining the value of plaintiff's interest.Nor could the parties agree on alimony, attorney fees and several miscellaneous debts.

Trial of these unresolved matters spanned a period of four days.At its conclusion, the court valued the dental lab at $184,500 and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff one-half of that amount or $92,250, in monthly installments of $1,000 without interest.Defendant was in turn awarded sole ownership of the lab.The trial court also awarded plaintiff alimony of $1,000 a month effective April 1, 1985, until October 1, 1985, $900 per month thereafter until April 1, 1986, and $800 a month thereafter until plaintiff's death, remarriage or until further order of the court.Finally, the trial court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff's counseling bill of $1,200, the parties' Golden Credit Line loan of $1,765.61, the business' unpaid 1984 income tax liability of $17,000 and plaintiff's partial attorney fees and trial expenses up to the amount of $2,000.

Defendant contends that the court's valuation of the dental lab is excessive as is the amount and length of the alimony award.Defendant also contends that the parties should be jointly liable for the loan and for the 1984 tax liability and that plaintiff should be solely responsible for her counseling bill as well as her attorney fees and trial costs.

We recognize that there are no mathematical formulas which govern the division of property in a divorce action and that the division need not be equal.Christofferson v. Christofferson, 363 Mich. 421, 426, 109 N.W.2d 848(1961);Wilkins v. Wilkins, 149 Mich.App. 779, 788, 386 N.W.2d 677(1986).However, viewing the property division as a whole, we are persuaded that the award in this case is generally inequitable.

At the time of trial, plaintiff had received approximately $49,000 in cash as well as apartment furnishings and no debts or liabilities.Defe...