Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealtrialcorporationdivorce

defendantattorneyappealtrialcorporation

Related Cases

Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich.App. 619, 671 N.W.2d 64

Facts

The parties were married in 1978 and had two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the divorce. The marital estate included a substantial home and the ex-husband's closely held corporation, which he owned prior to the marriage. The trial court awarded the ex-wife a significant portion of the marital estate but did not place a value on the ex-husband's stock in the corporation, instead ordering a division of the stock. The ex-husband contested the property division and the spousal support awarded to the ex-wife.

The parties were married in 1978 and have two children, only one of whom was a minor at the time this action was filed. The marital estate was substantial, including a 15,000 square-foot house in Grosse Pointe Farms and defendant's closely owned corporation, J.M. Olson Corporation (“the corporation”).

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to value the ex-husband's interest in his closely held corporation and in awarding the ex-wife spousal support without a finding of her needs?

Rule

Trial courts are required to make specific findings regarding the value of disputed marital property and to consider the needs of the parties when determining spousal support.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty to value the ex-husband's interest in the corporation, which was a significant asset in the marital estate. The court noted that the trial court's decision to divide the stock without a valuation was an abuse of discretion, as it neglected to make necessary findings of fact. Additionally, the court found that the spousal support award was not based on a proper assessment of the ex-wife's needs, as the trial court simply awarded her a percentage of the ex-husband's income without considering her financial situation.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty to value the ex-husband's interest in the corporation, which was a significant asset in the marital estate.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the value of the ex-husband's stock and to reassess the spousal support award based on the ex-wife's needs.

Who won?

The ex-wife prevailed in part, as the court upheld the award of additional attorney fees and costs, but the court's decision to vacate the spousal support and stock division orders indicated that the ex-husband's arguments were partially successful.

The ex-wife prevailed in part, as the court upheld the award of additional attorney fees and costs.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re J.D. Edwards World Solutions Co., 87 S.W.3d 546, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 18

Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 340 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 16 IER Cases 43

In re Disciplinary Action Curl, 803 F.2d 1004, 10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 822

In re Marriage of King, 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3196, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4297

Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871, 526 N.W.2d 889