By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-A Michigan Court of Appeals panel vacated a post-judgment order awarding spousal support 37 years after a divorce.
In Gallagher v. Gallagher, the panel agreed with the defense that the Oakland County Circuit Court Family Division erred in awarding $2,500 in monthly support to the plaintiff.
"The trial court's award of spousal support rewarded plaintiff for being a spendthrift and her failure to save for retirement," the appeals court opinion stated. "Conversely, it punished defendant for his investment skills and relative frugality."
The Feb. 21 unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Brock A. Swartzle, Jane E. Markey and Amy Ronayne Krause.
The defense argued that the plaintiff "failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances other than the dissipation of assets received in the consent judgment of divorce, and this did not suffice under the express language of the judgment." It also argued that the spousal support award was "unsupported by the evidence and inequitable."
The plaintiff contended that she was "not required to demonstrate a change of circumstances as a prerequisite to obtaining spousal support."
COA analysis
"Here, the spousal support clause in the consent divorce judgment reflected that the parties intended to require a change of circumstances before plaintiff could be awarded spousal support, unless the change entailed the dissipation of the assets plaintiff received," the opinion stated. "This language is clear and unambiguous."
The panel stated that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate a change of circumstances other than asset dissipation, a burden that was met "considering that defendant had amassed over $3 million in assets since the parties' divorce."
The plaintiff was working when the couple divorced, but she is now over 80 years old, does not work, and subsists on $2,254 per month she receives from her pension and Social Security benefits, according to the opinion.
"Establishing a change of circumstances after 37 years was a fairly easy hurdle to jump," the opinion stated.
Despite the plaintiff demonstrating a change of circumstances, the panel ruled that awarding spousal support was not fair and equitable. After a 22-year marriage, the plaintiff moved for spousal support 37 years after the divorce.
"At the time of the divorce, the marital assets were divided equally. Plaintiff worked full-time at Beaumont Hospital for nearly 20 years after the divorce, but she did not save more than a couple of thousand dollars in her 401(k) account. Then, she later used the money to buy her current home," the opinion stated.
The plaintiff's highest annual salary was about $53,000. She received about $100,000 from the combined estates of her son and mother after their deaths.
The panel also pointed out that she drives a vehicle with a sticker price of about $32,000 and pays around $287 per month to lease the vehicle after an initial payment of $6,000.
Meanwhile, the defendant retired from full-time employment with General Motors about six years after the divorce because he was battling cancer. His annual salary was about $50,000 when he retired.
"Defendant accurately describes himself as 'an astute investor,' and the majority of his assets are in a Fidelity investment portfolio worth over $2,000,000," according to the opinion. "Despite his wealth, defendant lives fairly modestly; he drives older vehicles; owns small homes in Florida and Michigan, and lives off the approximately $3,800 that he receives monthly by way of an annuity, Social Security benefits, and investments."
The panel concluded, "It is simply inequitable to redistribute defendant's assets to plaintiff 37 years after the divorce because of decisions plaintiff made during the many ensuing years since the divorce judgment was entered. Indeed, an award of any amount of spousal support under these circumstances would be inequitable. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded plaintiff spousal support."
Published: Wed, Apr 10, 2019
