Divorce; Claim that the home where the parties lived before their separation was marital property subject to equitable division; Principle that a party must ordinarily be “aggrieved” by a lower court decision in order to maintain an appeal; Spires v. Bergman; “Underwater” home defined; “Waiver” defined; Reed Estate v. Reed; MCR 3.210(4)(d) (notice of hearing for entry of a default judgment); Parenting time; “Ripeness”; Joint custody; The children’s best interests; MCL 722.23

The court affirmed the judgment of divorce but remanded for reconsideration of the issues of legal custody and parenting time. On remand, the trial court shall make findings of fact as to each of the statutory best interest factors. On appeal, the defendant-ex-husband contended that the trial court erred by not determining the home where the parties lived before their separation was marital property subject to equitable division, and also by not granting joint legal custody and parenting time with the parties’ two children. He claimed that the trial court erred by not taking jurisdiction over and entering a marital property distributive order as to the H Road property. The plaintiff-ex-wife testified in the trial court that her father owned the property and that “she and defendant paid rent. Further, defendant’s motion to void transfer of a marital asset and the documents attached to it” supported plaintiff’s testimony and belied “any claim to aggrieved status by defendant” as to the H Road property. Specifically, his “motion and the attached documents showed that plaintiff’s father took title to the property on May 24, 2002 (together with his wife and plaintiff with rights of survivorship) and that plaintiff had entered a lease agreement with her parents on June 10, 2002.” Also, defendant filed in the court a motion to waive fees and attached his affidavit as to financial status. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit as to assets listed the H Road home and stated, “My ex-wife or her father payes [sic] the mortgage etc.” He further stated in ¶ 6 that the home he claimed to have a marital interest in "is 'under water over $50,000.'" The court noted that an “underwater” home has “a mortgage loan for which more is owed than the property securing the loan is worth.” Given "defendant’s admissions and plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony,” the record did not show that defendant was aggrieved by the trial court’s failure to address the home on H Road. He also waived any claim he may have had as to the H Road property. While he filed motions in the trial court and claimed a marital interest in the H Road property, “he twice failed to appear at scheduled hearings to present his evidence, testimony, and arguments to the trial court.” His failure to present his evidence and arguments as to his claimed interest constituted a waiver of this issue. However, the trial court “erred by not making specific findings of fact and conclusions of law under the Child Custody Act.”