Spousal support; Whether the spousal support award was for the benefit of a third party; Loutts v. Loutts; MCL 552.23(1); Myland v. Myland; Olson v. Olson; Whether the plaintiff-ex-wife demonstrated that she could meet her expenses; Request to secure the support award with life insurance; Misplaced reliance on MCL 552.27; Plaintiff’s attorney fees; Richards v. Richards; MCL 552.13(1); MCR 3.206(C); MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) & (b)

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed the trial court’s order requiring the defendant-ex-husband to pay spousal support and denying the plaintiff-ex-wife’s request for attorney fees. Defendant argued that the trial court’s spousal support award was for the benefit of a third party (C, plaintiff’s father, who secured a loan for the parties’ restaurant) and was thus, inappropriate. He further argued that plaintiff failed to show that she was entitled to spousal support where she could cover her monthly expenses. Plaintiff argued that while the spousal support award was appropriate, the trial court erred in denying her request to secure the support award with life insurance. The court disagreed with each of the arguments. Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the spousal support award was not aimed at benefiting C. The trial court specifically concluded that it considered C’s involvement largely irrelevant. The parties took out the $300,000 loan in order to purchase the restaurant, knowing and expecting that they alone were responsible for the debt. The restaurant was a marital asset and the debts that went into acquiring that asset were jointly held by both parties. Thus, the trial court’s findings in this regard were not clearly erroneous. Nor did it err when it stated that, as a result of defendant’s bankruptcy, plaintiff was now “solely” responsible for the debts. That defendant hoped to discharge his debts in bankruptcy did not change the fact that the restaurant and its debts were marital property. Additionally, plaintiff did not testify that she could meet her monthly obligations. She testified that she could afford her monthly expenses with the exception of paying the loan amounts. At the time of trial, C was making the full payment on the loan. Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in including those amounts in determining plaintiff’s monthly expenses was specious, especially now that plaintiff was solely responsible for the debts. Defendant seemed to think that C would simply forgive his daughter of these debts, but there was no evidence in the record to support such a contention. C, plaintiff, and defendant agreed that C was entitled to repayment. It was obvious that the trial court attempted to balance the incomes and needs of the parties and its ultimate award was just and reasonable under the circumstances. It also did not abuse its discretion when it declined plaintiff’s request to secure the support award with life insurance.