Divorce; Spousal support; Berger v. Berger; MCL 552.23; Attorney fees; MCL 552.13(1); MCR 3.206(D)(1) & (2)(a); Loutts v. Loutts; Richards v. Richards

Concluding that the trial court considered each of the relevant factors and did not assign disproportionate weight to any of them, the court affirmed its award of $1,500 a month in spousal support for 10 years to defendant-ex-wife. But it agreed with her that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing or allowing her to support her request. Thus, it reversed as to the denial of attorney fees and remanded for development of the factual record and consideration of the request. As to spousal support, the court determined that the record did not support defendant’s argument that the trial court clearly erred in deciding not to weigh plaintiff-ex-husband’s “past relations and conduct against him.” Further, it did not consider future income defendant would receive from assets she was awarded in the divorce as a part of her income stream, as shown by its finding that her income was $22,000 for the purposes of the property division and determining spousal support. As to fault, the trial evidence “did not support that plaintiff caused the breakdown of the parties’ marriage and defendant” failed to show clear error by the trial court in “not considering or weighing marital fault in its determination of spousal support.” As to attorney fees, the court found that defendant’s request “was timely under MCL 522.13(1) because it was made during the pendency of the divorce proceeding and before the trial court gave its oral opinion regarding the divorce judgment, rather than after the entry of an order that resolved the last pending claims and closed the case.” It was likewise timely under MCR 3.206(D). In addition, there were facts in the record supporting her attorney fee request “on the basis of defendant’s inability to pay to defend the divorce proceeding and plaintiff’s ability to pay.” Yet the trial court did not give her “the opportunity to argue and allege sufficient facts to support her request . . . .” By failing to conduct a hearing or to permit her to support her request, it “did not render a decision on the basis of the particular facts and circumstances regarding the parties’ financial situations and the equities involved.”