Speaker Law
Blog

The Court of Appeals released a published opinion addressing spousal support and attorney fees in divorce cases in Myland v Myland. In Myland, the trial court fashioned a spousal support award by implementing an arbitrary formula and without considering the relevant spousal support factors. The Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that, without considering the relevant factors, the trial court's spousal support award did not account for the needs and circumstances of the parties and was thus, contrary to law. Specifically, the COA reasoned that the wife's serious medical condition, physical inability to work, and substantial health care costs should have been considered when fashioning the spousal support award.

In Myland, the COA also concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award attorney fees based on plaintiff's needs. The trial court declined to award attorney fees, proclaiming that it only awards attorney fees where a party has engaged in egregious conduct. The trial court's statement was contrary to law, given that MCR 3.206(C)(1) expressly provides for an award of fees based on a financial inability to defend a divorce action.

The bottom line is that this opinion cements the notion that a trial court presiding over a divorce action cannot completely disregard need in its spousal support or attorney fees analysis. So, when in need, Myland is a friend indeed!

Labels: attorney fees, divorce, equitable, Kalamazoo County, Michigan, spousal support

---

In Berger v. Berger, a Defendant-father appealed from a judgment of divorce to the
Michigan Court of Appeals following a Trial Court ruling that the Plaintiff-mother was to receive custody of the parties two children as well as a 70/30 division of marital property. While the Court of Appeals agreed with the Trial Court’s weighing of the best interest factors in favor of the mother receiving custody, it reversed the Trial Court's 70/30 division of property. Upon review of the Trial Court’s findings, the Court of Appeals stated that it appeared the Trial Court’s motives in diverging from the normal equitable division of property were based on the desire to “punish the Defendant for his affair with Johnson (the nanny), which the court found particularly egregious.” While the Trial Court was within its discretion to consider and weigh the factor of the extramarital affair by Defendant, the Court of Appeals pointed out that it was clear the lower court gave this factor disproportionate weight and the division of property was in fact, biased and inequitable.

One might wonder how the holding in this case matches up with that of the decision recently in Jackson v. Jackson, (see blog entry dated February 20, 2008) where the Court of Appeals affirmed a 97/3 division of marital property based on fault by the Defendant in the marriage. While seemingly similar factually, the Berger case can be contrasted with Jackson because here the Defendant’s conduct (an extramarital affair) while egregious, is certainly not on par with the Defendant’s efforts in Jackson to poison her husband in order to be with another man and take her husband’s money. There, the Court said that the behavior was so egregious it was appropriate to weigh it heavily, in Berger, the Court specifically stated that while the affair by Defendant should be a factor, it should not have been weighed as heavily as the Trial Court did.

Labels: divorce, divorce appeal, equitable, Jackson County, Michigan

---