 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bordeau v. Bordeau6/19/2003
UNPUBLISHED
In this divorce action, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's property division, alimony decision, and attorney fee award. We affirm.
I.
Plaintiff challenges the trial court's valuation of the parties' marital home and argues that the court should have used the value asserted by plaintiff's appraiser and should have deducted his expert's valuation of a life estate held by plaintiff's mother. We disagree.
In reviewing a property division, we will not reverse a trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, i.e., this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Beason v Beason, 435 Mich 791, 805; 460 NW2d 207 (1990); Stoudemire v Stoudemire, 248 Mich App 325, 336-337; 639 NW2d 274 (2001). When expert witnesses give divergent estimates concerning the appropriate value of marital property, the trial court has great latitude in arriving at a final figure. Pelton v Pelton, 167 Mich App 22, 26; 421 NW2d 560 (1988). Here, the trial court properly decided to value the marital home at $65,000 after finding that the appraisal by defendant's expert more accurately reflected the value of the property. Importantly, plaintiff's expert admitted that nearby vacant parcels containing comparable acreage, including the expert's own property, had sold for as high as $62,000. In addition to the underdeveloped value of the property, the subject parcel contained a serviceable detached garage, valued at $12,000 by plaintiff's expert. Therefore, were we to agree with plaintiff and place a negligible value on the marital home itself, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination that defendant's appraisal more closely reflected the value of the property.
Also, plaintiff argues that the trial court clearly erred in refusing to deduct a substantial amount from the value of the property to represent the life estate held by his mother. Plaintiff does not provide supporting authority for the appropriate valuation of the life estate under the circumstances of this case but maintains that, when a person entitled to a life estate is wrongfully evicted, the measure of damages is calculated by determining the fair rental value of the property and multiplying it by the life tenant's life expectancy as reduced to present value. See Grove v Youell, 110 Mich 285, 291; 68 NW 132 (1896). While this calculation may be appropriate under those circumstances, this case presents a much different situation. Here, the life tenant has not been evicted and neither plaintiff nor his mother intended to sell the property. Both plaintiff and his mother testified that she intended to return to the home where she would live with plaintiff.
Further, plaintiff would continue to pay property taxes and to pay for the maintenance of the home. Thus, as to the parties in this action, the monetary value of the life estate was essentially negligible. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not clearly err in deciding not to deduct the life estate from the property valuation to determine an equitable division of marital property.
II.
Plaintiff also says that the trial court erred in awarding defendant the entire amount of proceeds from her personal injury claims from a 1994 automobile accident. Plaintiff maintains that the money is marital property subject to division. Had the trial court, in fact, determined that the entire proceeds were separate property, plaintiff would be correct. Bywater v Bywater, 128 Mich App 396, 399-400; 340 NW2d 102 (1983); Heilman v Heilman, 95 Mich App 728, 731; 291 NW2d 183 (1980). However, though the property was awarded to defendant, the trial court di
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|