Divorce; Spousal support; Loutts v. Loutts; Gates v. Gates; Modification; Thornton v. Thornton; MCL 552.28; Ackerman v. Ackerman; Amount; Thames v. Thames

Concluding that the evidence overall supported the trial court’s statements and findings, and that they were not unfair or inequitable, the court affirmed its modification of spousal support for plaintiff-ex-wife in the amount of $2,000 a month. The parties had been married for 23 years when they divorced in 2013. Their consent divorce judgment provided that defendant-ex-husband would pay plaintiff $3,200 a month in modifiable spousal support. He was then employed full-time earning over $100,000 a year. He obtained a modification in 2016 to $ 2,500 a month. He sought another modification in 2017, and the trial court entered the order at issue on appeal. The trial court “specifically and explicitly considered each” of the Thames factors on the record. It noted that “plaintiff’s testimony and submitted documents indicated that the majority of her income comes from spousal support and that she receives a lesser amount of social security benefits than defendant. It noted that defendant resides with a partner and shares living expenses with her (having done so for five years), as well as being provided with a car. Plaintiff, on the other hand, lives alone and is heavily dependent upon the spousal support for her 2017 income of $32,741.” While defendant asserted that it “was not even-handed in its treatment of” their income and savings, he did not offer any “indication that there were additional pension benefits that plaintiff could be collecting but was not. The trial court also clearly acknowledged defendant’s failing health (and plaintiff’s good health) and his reduced income in fashioning an appropriate” award. If, as he contended, it should have considered the $100 per month that she “could, but was not yet receiving into its equity consideration, the amount would add up to only $1,200 more per year to plaintiff’s income.” Adding this to her admittedly unreported income of $2,400 a “year for caregiving services would equal an additional $3,600 in yearly income to plaintiff’s $32,741 reported income.” This minimal amount would be unlikely to “drastically affect plaintiff’s ability to meet her needs for the foreseeable future. The trial court focused significantly on factor (12), general principles of equity, in reaching its decision.” It determined that lowering the award further than $2,000 a month “would inequitably impoverish her and create a significant hardship on her ability to meet her financial needs.” The court found no error.