Separate maintenance; MCL 552.6(1) & 7; Whether a legally incapacitated person’s guardian & conservator had authority to file the action; Smith v. Smith; Houghton v. Keller; In re Burnett Estate; Waiver; Quality Prod. & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc.; The Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood; Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the statutory grounds for separate maintenance; Grotelueschen v. Grotelueschen; Winkelman v. Winkelman; Photos depicting injuries consistent with the alleged abuse as independent evidence the abusive acts occurred; People v. Hendrickson; Admissibility of hearsay (MRE 801(c)); MRE 804(a)(4) & (b)(7); Property division; Hodge v. Parks; Woodington v. Shokoohi; Cunningham v. Cunningham; Equitable distribution; Gates v. Gates; Richards v. Richards; Fault; McDougal v. McDougal; Spousal support; Loutts v. Loutts; Berger v. Berger; Olson v. Olson; A trial court’s factual findings; Korth v. Korth; MCR 2.517(A)(2); Pension benefits as income for spousal support purposes; MCL 552.602(n)(ii); Ackerman v. Ackerman; Attorney fees; Smith v. Khouri; MRPC 1.5(a); Wood v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch.; MCR 3.206(C)(2); Riemer v. Johnson; Reed v. Reed; Reasonableness of the requested fees; Evidentiary hearing on remand; Ewald v. Ewald; Request for reasonable appellate attorney fees; MCR 3.206(C)(1); Wiley v. Wiley

The court held that the defendant-husband waived his argument that the plaintiff- wife’s guardian and conservator (K) lacked authority to file this separate maintenance action on his wife’s behalf, and in any event, his argument lacked merit. It also held that his summary disposition motion was properly denied because plaintiff presented admissible evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact as to the statutory grounds for separate maintenance. Further, her hearsay statements were admissible under MRE 804(b)(7), the property division and spousal support award were equitable, and the trial court did not err in requiring defendant to pay the spousal support from his pension benefit income. However, the court vacated the attorney fee award and remanded for further consideration of this issue. It noted that “it is clear that a conservator may file a separate maintenance action on behalf of an incompetent person.” Plaintiff showed a genuine issue of disputed material fact through K’s affidavit “averring ‘that there has been a breakdown in the marital relationship to the extent that the objectives of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.’” While K was “not personally a party to the marriage, she was acting on plaintiff’s behalf as her guardian and conservator,” and defendant cited no authority “establishing that an incompetent spouse’s guardian and conservator is unable to testify in support of the statutory grounds for separate maintenance.” Plaintiff also presented photos depicting her “bruised face and body following the alleged abuse by defendant, police reports, and a guardian ad litem’s report containing plaintiff’s statements that she had been abused and no longer wished to have contact with defendant or to be married to him.” Given the substantively admissible evidence that he “physically and mentally abused plaintiff” and that she feared him “and did not wish to remain married to him, there was evidence to support a finding that the objects of matrimony had been destroyed.” The court vacated the attorney fee award due to the trial court’s failure to make the required findings on reasonableness. It affirmed in all other respects.