Smith v. Smith, Docket No. 55815
| Decision Date | 31 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 55815 |
| Citation | 317 N.W.2d 324,113 Mich.App. 148 |
| Parties | Mary E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. SMITH, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Garbrecht & Hentchell, Battle Creek, for plaintiff-appellant.
William R. Rush, Mount Pleasant, for defendant-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P. J., and R. B. BURNS and KELLY, JJ.
Plaintiff Mary Smith appeals from the court order dividing marital property after her divorce from defendant James A. Smith.
The Smiths were married on May 30, 1964, and had two minor children at the time of trial. In 1969, Mr. Smith was disabled by an injury received at work and has been unable to return to regular employment. As a result of his disability, defendant receives $498 a month in social security disability benefits. He also receives an additional $137 each month for each child, and he earns approximately $100 a month from occasional jobs. Defendant's total monthly income is around $872.
When the parties separated, defendant remained in the marital home with the children, while plaintiff rented another residence. At the time of trial, plaintiff was employed, earning between $300 and $400 a month. She was also in the process of litigating a workers' compensation claim arising out of a previous employment. Her prior employer had offered to redeem the claim for $16,000, which, upon advice of counsel, plaintiff rejected as too low.
During trial, evidence was introduced showing that the parties owned a home valued at $31,500 which had a $20,000 mortgage lien. The parties also owned 13 acres of land valued at $6,000. Two acres of this land were sold on land contract, and the proceeds from the sale were being used to pay off the mortgage on the 13 acres. The parties also owned a van valued at $2,000 and an Oldsmobile automobile, value unknown. Finally, the plaintiff's sister owed the parties $600 from a loan they had extended to her. Against these assets, the parties owed $2,500 on the van and approximately $1,975 in miscellaneous debts.
The trial court awarded custody of the children to Mr. Smith, and plaintiff was ordered to pay $15 per week for the children's support. Mrs. Smith was awarded the sole right to her workers' compensation claim. Mr. Smith received the marital home and household goods contained therein. Plaintiff received sole right to the $600 due from her sister and the Oldsmobile. Defendant received the van, subject to the lien thereon. Mr. Smith also received the acreage subject to a $1,000 lien in favor of plaintiff. He was ordered to assume the outstanding debts of the marriage.
On March 17, 1981, plaintiff moved to reduce the child support payments. Her motion was granted, the support payments being reduced to $5 per week for the childrens' support. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the property settlement was inequitable.
A trial court has wide discretion when adjusting the property rights of the parties to a divorce. Kendall v. Kendall, 106 Mich.App. 240, 244, 307 N.W.2d 457 (1981). This Court will not reverse a trial judge's property decision unless it is convinced that, sitting in the lower court's position, it would have reached a different result. McLain v. McLain, 108 Mich.App. 166, 168-169, 310 N.W.2d 316 (1981). The division of the property need not be equal, so long as it is fair. Id., 169, 310 N.W.2d 316.
Initially, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it included her workers' compensation claim as part of the marital assets. In Evans v. Evans, 98 Mich.App. 328, 296 N.W.2d 248 (1980), lv. den. 410 Mich. 884 (1981), the plaintiff filed for divorce, and, while awaiting trial, he was injured at work. Prior to his divorce being finalized, he redeemed his workers' compensation claim for $5,176. In the judgment of divorce, the trial court included this amount as part of the marital assets. Plaintiff appealed, claiming his workers' compensation redemption should not have been included in the marital assets. This Court affirmed the judgment stating:
"Since the Worker's Disability Compensation Act was enacted to assist...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queen v. Queen
...merely the injured worker, but the worker's family as well, and the benefits are therefore marital property. See Smith v. Smith, 113 Mich.App. 148, 317 N.W.2d 324, 326 (1982); Evans v. Evans, 98 Mich.App. 328, 296 N.W.2d 248, 248 (1980), leave denied, 410 Mich. 884 (1981); Hughes v. Hughes,......
-
Butler v. Simmons-Butler
...196, 202, 98 N.W.2d 519 (1959) (recognizing the trial court's “traditional broad discretion” in divorce cases); Smith v. Smith, 113 Mich.App. 148, 150, 317 N.W.2d 324 (1982) (noting that in divorce cases trial courts have “wide discretion” in dividing property). Indeed, the court's guiding ......
-
Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 86-2038
...N.E.2d 545 (1980); Johnson v. Johnson, 638 S.W.2d 703 (Ky.1982); Queen v. Queen, 308 Md. 574, 521 A.2d 320 (1987); Smith v. Smith, 113 Mich.App. 148, 317 N.W.2d 324 (1982); Hafner v. Hafner, 406 N.W.2d 590 (Minn.Ct.App.1987); In re Marriage of Blankenship, 682 P.2d 1354 (Mont.1984); Hughes ......
-
Crocker v. Crocker
...(Ky.1982); In re Marriage of Detore, 86 Ill.App.3d 540, 42 Ill.Dec. 51-52, 408 N.E.2d 429, 430 (1980). See also, Smith v. Smith, 113 Mich.App. 148, 317 N.W.2d 324, 236 (1982) (The court based its action on the fact that the workers' compensation act was intended for both the worker and his/......