 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gruskin v. Gruskin6/3/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment of divorce and raises six issues on appeal. We affirm.
The parties married on March 29, 1986, and have three minor children. Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance on July 30, 1999. Defendant filed a counterclaim for divorce on August 11, 1999. The trial court awarded plaintiff physical custody of the minor children and ordered defendant to pay child support . The trial court equally divided the marital property, which totaled over $1.2 million, between the parties and awarded plaintiff spousal support for eight years. The trial court also awarded defendant $20,000 in attorney fees.
I.
Plaintiff first claims that the trial court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding several of the relevant property division factors. We disagree.
We review the trial court's factual findings for clear error. Byington v Byington, 224 Mich App 103, 109; 568 NW2d 141 (1997), citing Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30, 34; 497 NW2d 493 (1993). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. McNamara v Horner, 249 Mich App 177, 182-183; 642 NW2d 385 (2002). If the factual findings are upheld, we then determine whether the ultimate dispositional ruling was fair and equitable in light of the facts. Byington, supra. Reversal of the ultimate disposition of the case is proper only if we are left with the firm conviction that the distribution was inequitable. Id.
"The goal of the court when apportioning a marital estate is to reach an equitable division in light of all the circumstances." Byington, supra at 114, citing Ackerman v Ackerman, 163 Mich App 796, 807; 414 NW2d 919 (1987). "When dividing the estate, the court should consider the duration of the marriage, the contribution of each party to the marital estate, each party's station in life, each party's earning ability, each party's age, health, and needs, fault or past misconduct, and any other equitable circumstances." Byington, supra at 115, citing Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 158-160; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). "The significance of each of these factors will vary from case to case, and each factor need not be given equal weight where the circumstances dictate otherwise." Id.
Plaintiff first contends that the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiff was in good health when she is unable to work due to her disability. We disagree and find that the evidence supported the trial court's finding. Although plaintiff's testimony, that she uses a cane to walk up and down stairs, has problems sitting and standing for long periods of time, is unable to walk long distances, and driving is painful, supported plaintiff's claim that she was disabled due to a back injury , the testimony also supported a finding that plaintiff's condition did not immobilize her such that she was no longer able to work. Defendant testified that plaintiff worked as a real estate agent while on disability, worked as a builder, and was involved in real estate transactions every year throughout the marriage. Moreover, there was evidence that plaintiff was able to do physical activities after her last surgery. Based on the record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in finding plaintiff in good health. McNamara, supra.
Plaintiff next contends that the trial court clearly erred by failing to find that the life status of the parties significantly differed because her employment outlook is dim or limited, while defendant has a secure job. We disagree. Contrary to plaintiff's conten
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|