Robinson v. Robinson, 40.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1936
• Docket Number: No. 40.,40.
• Citation: 275 Mich. 420,266 N.W. 403
• Parties: ROBINSON v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

275 Mich. 420

266 N.W. 403

ROBINSON

v.ROBINSON.

No. 40.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 7, 1936.

Suit by Myrtle B. Robinson against Robert L. Robinson. From the decree, plaintiff appeals.

Cause remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Muskegon County, in Chancery; John VanderWerp, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

William J. Branstrom, of Fremont, for appellant.

Harry W. Jackson, of Muskegon, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Justice.

The parties to this action had been married for over 24 years when plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. They had no children. They were frugal, industrious, and honest. Defendant's father owned a farm of 150 acres on which there were two houses, one of which he had erected as a home for defendant and plaintiff. His father also owned a half interest in a 40-acre tract across the road from the larger farm; defendant owning the other half. The property is situated in Muskegon county. Upon the death of plaintiff's father, her mother came to live with them. Defendant, on the other hand, upon the death of his father, moved to his mother's home, and refused to have anything further to do with plaintiff, notwithstanding overtures made by her for his return and her offer to have her mother leave the home. He professed his respect, but utter lack of love, for plaintiff.

During over 24 years while the parties lived together, plaintiff not only looked after the duties of the household and also assisted in the housework of defendant's parents, but also helped to do the chores around the farm as well as some actual field work. The parties accumulated considerable savings and loaned out money on mortgages. Defendant frankly admits that he recognized at all times that his wife was entitled to one-half of the joint savings. The trial judge, after attempting a reconciliation, filed an opinion stating that there should be an equal division of most of the property. About 3 months later he entered a decree without giving notice of settlement to plaintiff or her attorney. A copy of the proposed decree with notice of settlement should have been served upon plaintiff's attorney. Section 14121, C.L.1929. The failure, however, to give such notice loses its force in the instant case as we consider it de novo.

Neither of the parties complain of the provisions of the decree granting the divorce. Plaintiff, however, contends that there was not an equitable division of the property. There is no rigid rule of division of property in divorce proceedings, but the division must be equitable. Mayer v. Mayer, 266 Mich. 241, 253 N.W. 282. On March 14, 1932, defendant's father and mother executed a note to defendant for the sum of $4,988, payable with interest at 6 per cent. within 12 months after date. The note represented payment for services performed by plaintiff and defendant for the latter's father as well as a loan of $1,600 cash, or thereabouts. Sometime prior to the beginning of the proceedings, defendant, upon his father's death, inherited his father's 170 acres of farm subject to a life interest in defendant's mother, who is 76 years of age. The mother inherited the personal property on the farm. Defendant did not present the note as a claim against his father's estate, which was closed on October 24, 1933. His failure to prove the claim is explained by his interest in the estate. The statutory time for proving the claim has gone by. The court in its opinion recognized plaintiff's rights in one-half of the proceeds of the note, and the decree so provided, stipulating that the note should be filed with the clerk of the court for the benefit of each of the parties. Plaintiff, as owner of a one-half interest in the note, however, should have a means of collecting such interest. Defendant, therefore, is ordered to pay such amount,...