Divorce; Whether certain property was separate property or marital property; Cunningham v. Cunningham; Reeves v. Reeves; Thames v. Thames; Equitableness of property division; McNamara v. Horner; Child support; Clarke v. Clarke; Income; MCL 552.605(2); Carlson v. Carlson; Shann v. Shann; Distribution of stock; Thornton v. Thornton; Educational expenses; Spousal support; Olson v. Olson; Berger v. Berger; Gates v. Gates; Hanaway v. Hanaway; Smith v. Smith; Harmless errors; Giesen v. Giesen; Valuation date; Thompson v. Thompson; Byington v. Byington; Establishment of a trust for the benefit of the children; MCL 552.20; Dissipation of marital assets; Woodington v. Shokoohi; “Dissipate” defined 

Holding that the property division was fair and equitable, but that remand was necessary for the trial court to recalculate the parties’ income and recalculate the child support award, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The parties raised several issues as to whether certain property was separate property or marital property subject to division. The defendant-ex-wife argued that her premarital Gentex stock was erroneously classified as marital property. The trial testimony established that she acquired 72,000 shares of the stock before the marriage and that it was held in her sole name. “At that point, the Gentex stock was separate property.” However, the trial court accepted the plaintiff-ex-husband’s testimony, which established that “defendant transferred her Gentex stock to a joint account” so that they could sell it “to take advantage of lower capital gains tax rates and to have the necessary funds to make a down payment on a blueberry farm that was intended to be a marital investment.” Defendant contended that the stock “remained separate property because a mere change in title is not dispositive of whether an asset is separate or marital.” However, the facts indicated “more than just a mere change in title.” Plaintiff’s testimony showed that the “shares of Gentex stock were intended to be treated as marital property” because they were deposited “into a jointly held account to accomplish the marital goals of reducing their tax liabilities and purchasing a blueberry farm.” Thus, the “parties’ conduct—the clearest indicia of whether an asset is marital—indicates that the parties intended to treat the Gentex stock as marital property.” The trial court’s factual finding that the Gentex stock was marital property was not clearly erroneous. As to child support, the court concluded that the “trial court’s finding that plaintiff had an income of $75,000 was clearly erroneous” where he admitted that he had an income of $80,000. Further, because “the trial court failed to attribute the appropriate amount in dividend income each party will receive, the parties’ incomes do not accurately reflect the income each party has available for support.”