Young v. Young

• Decision Date: 13 October 1958
• Docket Number: No. 54,54
• Citation: 354 Mich. 254,92 N.W.2d 328
• Parties: William P. YOUNG, Sr., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellee, v. Hazel M. YOUNG, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 328

92 N.W.2d 328

354 Mich. 254

William P. YOUNG, Sr., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellee, v. Hazel M. YOUNG, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 13, 1958.

Wurzer, Higgins & Starrs, Detroit, Davidow & Davidow, Detroit, for defendant, cross-plaintiff and appellant.

Walter M. Nelson, Detroit, for plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

VOELKER, Justice.

In 1954 the plaintiff and appellee filed a bill of complaint for divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that the parties had lived and cohabited as husband and wife from 1934 to 1951 when the conduct of the wife rendered further marital relationship impossible. Defendant wife filed an answer of denial to the bill of complaint along with a cross bill for divorce on the ground of adultery. Her cross bill was uncontested. The primary dispute below involved the value and division of the marital property.

The parties began their romance in 1926, seven years prior to the husband's divorce from his first wife. In 1934 they were married shortly after appellee went through bankruptcy. The first few years of their marriage were financially difficult, but in the early 1940's fortune smiled--the appellee acquired a beer distributing franchise and, thus endowed, things began measurably to improve. In less than 10 years he had acquired a fortune in excess of a million dollars. As their material fortunes improved their marital fortunes deteriorated until a divorce court took over. We are now faced with the problem of passing on the division of the spoils made below.

While the wife's counter suit for divorce was uncontested, as noted, the litigants managed to take up some 2,000 typewritten pages of testimony in the trial court, largely on the subject of value and division of property. Fortunately the attorney were somewhat more considerate when they drafted their briefs and appendices; we were obliged to wade through only slightly more than 1,000 printed pages. Boiled down even more drastically, we uncover 3 main issues. Did the chancellor err in setting the value of the assets to be divided at $1,127,598.60? Did he allow the aggrieved wife her proper share? Is $7,000 adequate compensation for her attorneys?

Appellant argues that the value of the family holdings is in excess of $2,000,000. The major cause for the sharp divergence of opinion on the subject of value arises mostly from a dispute over the value of the stocks and holdings of Better Brands Distributing Company, an unlisted family-owned corporation devoted to the distribution of fermented beverages. Appellee supported his claim of value by the testimony of a certified public accountant who had worked with the corporation for several years. Appellant in turn supported her claim of greater value by the testimony of an expert witness who dealt regularly in stocks and bonds, but who was unfamiliar with the Better Brands corporation, its holdings, and its stock.

The chancellor accepted the opinion of the husband's accountant as to value. Appellant objects and urges that his testimony should have been disregarded because of his past close relationship with the corporation and the husband. In other words she argues bias. Perhaps there was bias, but we have only her unsupported assertion. We think bias must be shown by something more. Were we to hold that past relationship and familiarity with what he undertakes to testify about alone discredits such a witness then we will have put a premium upon ignorance and have judicially enshrined hunch and guess. We find no error or abuse of discretion by the court in accepting the...