Woodington v. Shokoohi

• Decision Date: 04 May 2010
• Docket Number: Docket No. 288923.
• Citation: 288 Mich.App. 352,792 N.W.2d 63
• Parties: WOODINGTON v. SHOKOOHI.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

288 Mich.App. 352

792 N.W.2d 63

WOODINGTON

v.SHOKOOHI.

Docket No. 288923.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 2, 2010, at Lansing.

Decided May 4, 2010, at 9:05 a.m.

Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner P.L.C., Saginaw, (by Jamie Hecht Nisidis) for plaintiff.

Skinner Professional Law Corporation, Bay City, (by David R. Skinner) for defendant.

Before: KIRSTEN FRANK KELLY, P.J., and SAAD and WHITBECK, JJ.

SAAD, J.

Plaintiff, Cheri Woodington, appeals the trial court's judgment of divorce. She argues that the trial court made inadequate findings of fact in regard to the value of marital property, the date of valuation, and the status of certain assets as marital or separate property. She also raises issues concerning discovery, spousal support, and attorney fees. Defendant, Kamran Shokoohi, cross-appeals and contends that the trial court erred by failing to divide the property in accordance with the parties' prenuptial agreement. We affirm some aspects of the trial court's judgment; however, because the inadequacy of the trial court's findings on several of these matters precludes meaningful appellate review, we remand for further proceedings.

I. SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by awarding her alimony in gross in lieu of the spousal support she sought. She also contends that the trial court failed to make findings of fact in support of this decision. We find that the trial court's failure to make relevant findings precludes review of this decision, and we remand to the trial court for further findings.

This Court reviews a trial court's award of spousal support for an abuse of discretion. Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich.App. 619, 631, 671 N.W.2d 64 (2003). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372, 388, 719 N.W.2d 809 (2006). The trial court's findings of fact relating to an award of spousal support are reviewed for clear error. Moore v. Moore, 242 Mich.App. 652, 654, 619 N.W.2d 723 (2000).

" 'In deciding a divorce action, the circuit court must make findings of fact and dispositional rulings.' "McDougal v. McDougal, 451 Mich. 80, 87, 545 N.W.2d 357 (1996) (citations omitted). This Court must first review the trial court's findings of fact. Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141, 151, 485 N.W.2d 893 (1992). Findings of fact, such as a trial court's valuation of particular marital assets, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791, 805, 460 N.W.2d 207 (1990). A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id.;Johnson v. Johnson, 276 Mich.App. 1, 10-11, 739 N.W.2d 877 (2007). Special deference is given to the trial court's findings when they are based on the credibility of the witnesses. Draggoo v. Draggoo, 223 Mich.App. 415, 429, 566 N.W.2d 642 (1997). The determination of the proper time for valuation of an asset is in the trial court's discretion. Gates v. Gates, 256 Mich.App. 420, 427, 664 N.W.2d 231 (2003). If the trial court's findings of fact are upheld, the appellate court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of those facts. Sparks, 440 Mich. at 151-152, 485 N.W.2d 893. "The court's dispositional ruling should be affirmed unless this Court is left with the firmconviction that the division was inequitable." Pickering v. Pickering, 268 Mich.App. 1, 7, 706 N.W.2d 835 (2005).

Plaintiff sought spousal support in the amount of $55,000 annually (rounded to $4,600 monthly) payable until the parties' youngest child began attending high school, which would enable plaintiff to continue her status as a full-time, stay-at-home mom until the children completed middle school. Defendant stated in his trial brief that he would be willing to pay spousal support in the amount of $55,000 per year for two years.

The objective of spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties in a way that will not impoverish either party, and support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich.App. 700, 726, 747 N.W.2d 336 (2008). Among the factors that a court should consider are: (1) the past relations and conduct of the parties; (2) the length of the marriage; (3) the abilities of the parties to work; (4) the source and the amount of property awarded to the parties; (5) the parties' ages; (6) the abilities of the parties to pay support; (7) the present situation of the parties; (8) the needs of the parties; (9) the parties' health; (10) the parties' prior standard of living and whether either is responsible for the support of others; (11) the contributions of the parties to the joint estate; (12) a party's fault in causing the divorce; (13) the effect of cohabitation on a party's financial status; and (14) general principles of equity. Id. at 726-727, 747 N.W.2d 336.

Plaintiff says that the trial court abused its discretion because it essentially denied her spousal support, and opted instead to award her alimony in gross, "adivision of property." ¹ The trial court did not explain its reasons for awarding alimony in gross, its reasons for awarding the specific amount of alimony in gross, or its reasons for denying plaintiff's request for periodic spousal support subject to modification under MCL 552.28. Accordingly, we are unable to discern why the court believed that this decision was appropriate for the parties' circumstances. The trial court could have ordered spousal support or an awardof property called "alimony in gross" but, to support its dispositional ruling, the court was required to make findings of fact that are susceptible to appellate review. Because the trial court failed to provide its analysis or reasoning regarding its decision to award alimony in gross and deny plaintiff's request for spousal support, we must reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court make findings of fact appropriate for judicial review.

II. SAWMILL CREEK PROPERTY

Plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred by finding that the real property defendant purchased on Sawmill Creek was not a marital asset. We disagree.

We review for clear error a trial courts findings of fact regarding whether a particular asset qualifies as marital or separate property. See McNamara v. Horner, 249 Mich.App. 177, 182-183, 642 N.W.2d 385 (2002). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.Ackerman v. Ackerman, 197 Mich.App. 300, 302, 495 N.W.2d 173 (1992). We accord special deference to a trial court's factual findings that were based on witness credibility. Draggoo, 223 Mich.App. at 429, 566 N.W.2d 642.

A "trial court's first consideration when dividing property in divorce proceedings is the determination of marital and separate assets." Reeves v. Reeves, 226 Mich.App. 490, 493-494, 575 N.W.2d 1 (1997). Marital assets are those that came "to either party by reason of the marriage...." MCL 552.19. Generally, marital assets are subject to being divided between the parties, but separate assets may not be invaded. McNamara, 249 Mich.App. at 183, 642 N.W.2d 385.

Plaintiff presented evidence that the Sawmill Creek property was a marital asset acquired by defendant before she filed for divorce, but defendant presented evidence that he bought the property for and on behalf of his sister, with his sister's money. This issue presented a question of the credibility of the witnesses. Although the trial court might have found that defendant's explanation of his involvement in the Sawmill Creek property purchase was not credible, and that he was concealing the property's true status as a marital asset, it gave credence to his explanation. This finding was not clearly erroneous because it was based on the trial court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses. Draggoo, 223 Mich.App. at 429, 566 N.W.2d 642.

III. DISCOVERY OF BUSINESS RECORDS

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by denying her discovery request for production of the business records of the Great Lakes Eye Institute, P.C. (the P.C.). A trial court's decisions regarding discovery are reviewed for abuse of discretion.Mercy Mt. Clemens Corp. v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 219 Mich.App. 46, 50, 555 N.W.2d 871 (1996). In view of the unique circumstances of defendant's relationship to the P.C., we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the discovery request.

After completing his residency in ophthalmology, defendant practiced medicine with the Great Lakes Eye Institute, P.C., a professional corporation owned by his brother, Farhad Shokoohi. Defendant was allegedly employed pursuant to an employment agreement, but his compensation up to and including 2005 was substantially higher than the amount due under the agreement. In 2006, the year plaintiff filed for divorce, defendant's compensation was reduced to the contractual payment amount. Plaintiff maintained that defendant was a part owner of the P.C., althoughcorporate documents listed Farhad as the sole owner. She sought discovery of the P.C.'s business records to investigate the true nature of defendant's relationship with the P.C., and the method by which his compensation was determined. The trial court reviewed the records in camera and denied the request.

The issue, as framed by plaintiff, is not whether the trial court erred by finding that defendant had no ownership interest in the P.C., but whether the trial court erred by denying plaintiff the discovery materials she says are necessary to assess defendant's status in relation to the P.C. The trial court's comments that the materials were not discoverable because they did not contain information concerning defendant's income reflect a misunderstanding of plaintiff's purpose in seeking the...