In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant husband's contentions that the trial court had improperly awarded Wife 83% of the marital assets to punish him for his extra-marital affairs. The Court said that a claimed $94,000 “debt” did not appear to be valid, that the husband’s conduct did warrant a disproportionate award in plaintiff’s favor, and that its review of the record didn’t support his contention that his fault was given undue or disproportionate weight when it divided the marital estate between the parties.[Woude-Leerentveld v Leerentveld, Docket No. 241502 Decided April 5, 2005]
Under Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160 (1992), Michigan Courts are bound to consider the following when dividing marital assets between divorcing parties: the duration of the marriage, the contributions of the parties to the marital estate, their age, health, life status, necessities, circumstances, earning abilities, and past relations and conduct, general principles of equity, and any other factor relevant to the particular case, including consideration of the interruption of the personal career or education of either party. A division of property in a divorce case need not be equal; however, it must be equitable and “roughly congruent.” [Jansen v Jansen, 205 Mich App 169, 171 (1994)]. The court’s role in dividing the property in a divorce action “is to achieve equity, not to ‘punish’ one of the parties.” [Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30, 36-37 (1993).
While Michigan has been a "No-Fault" state since 1972, it is apparent that to some extent, Michigan courts will continue to use fault as a factor when considering whether to give one spouse more that half of the marital assets.
To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.
Technorati tags: property division, property distribution, divorce, fault
Comments