Wood v. Wood, 18.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1939
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Parties: WOOD v. WOOD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

288 Mich. 14

284 N.W. 627

WOOD

v.WOOD.

No. 18.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 9, 1939.

Suit for divorce by Emma C. Wood against George W. Wood. From an unsatisfactory decree, plaintiff appeals.

Decree affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Lester S. Moll, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Herbert W. Smith, of Lapeer, for appellant.

David V. Martin, of Detroit, for appellee.

McALLISTER, Justice.

Emma C. Wood appeals from the provisions of distribution of property interests in a decree in which she was awarded a divorce from defendant and claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award her alimony and counsel fees.

Prior to marriage, plaintiff was engaged in an extensive real estate business, which she continued during the married life of the parties. Defendant had a drug store of which he was proprietor. Both parties engaged in various real estate and financial transactions, and much of their trouble arose out of controversies relating thereto. Before plaintiff's marriage she had purchased a house and lot on Harding avenue in Detroit on a land contract, paying down $1700. She paid $600 for reconditioning the house. She also owned two cottages and several lots on a lake. She received an income of $400 a year from the cottages. Prior to the marriage, she had received rent from the Harding avenue property, but shortly thereafter the parties moved into the premises and lived there until the filing of the bill of complaint. Plaintiff claims defendant's drug store was worth $10,000 at the time of their marriage. Defendant receives about a $100 a year from an investment in a coal company, and is obligated to pay $12 a week to his first wife by the terms of a divorce decree. Because of difficulties arising from the manner in which such payments had been made, defendant was requested by an attorney to make some arrangement to secure such payments. He thereupon gave a chattel mortgage covering the drug store to his son, by his previous marriage, in order that the payments could be made promptly by the son out of profits from the store. Since 1929, the son has been taking care of such alimony payments out of his own salary, there not being sufficient from the income of the store for this purpose. The chattel mortgage was given also to secure the son for back salary due, and merchandise given by him to his father, and also because of an understanding that defendant was going to give the store to his son after he was through with it. According to the evidence, the store and fixtures are worth at the present time $4500 to $5000. It is unprofitable, and neither defendant nor his son operate it; but defendant pays the rent and employs others to carry on the business.

A review of the testimony of the parties might lead one to believe that the suit for divorce was a bill for an accounting; and it would be of no interest or value to the profession to discuss the multitudinous transactions, loans, borrowings, purchases, and joint financial contributions that seem of such obsessing importance to the parties, transcending, it would appear, the spirit and relationship to be found usually in marriage.

The trial court, while granting plaintiff a divorce, refused to allow her alimony or attorney fees. As a result of the decree plaintiff is the owner of property worth $12,000 over and above incumbrances. While plaintiff urges that she was the owner of such property prior to the marriage, there is evidence that...