Divorce; Property distribution; Invading separate property; MCL 552.401; Hanaway v Hanaway; Waiver; Allard v Allard; A passive investment; Dart v Dart; Spousal support

After remand for further proceedings as to two assets and elaboration about the spousal support award, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. One of the assets was defendant-ex-husband’s stock in a company referred to as SE. The other was his interest in a company referred to as CCB. As instructed, on remand the trial court considered the Hanaway factors, and made several factual findings. Defendant asserted it “did not make a separate finding as to whether MCL 552.401 applied.” However, the court noted that it “made multiple findings as to the” statute’s applicability. He also contended the statute did not apply because plaintiff-ex-wife did not contribute to the stock’s acquisition. As he acquired it before their marriage via a trust established by his father, he was correct that she did not contribute to its acquisition. But MCL 552.401 provides that a trial “court may award a party all or a portion of the property owned by his or her spouse when ‘the party contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property.’” Given the use of the word “or” in the statute, the fact plaintiff did not contribute to the asset’s acquisition was not dispositive. The trial court made specific findings that she “contributed to the accumulation of the asset by her direct efforts as an employee and her management of the household and childcare for the couple’s children.” Defendant further contended that the statute did not apply because the company and its “shares did not appreciate during the marriage.” However, although an increase in the stock’s value was a measure of both parties’ contribution “to SE, effort which resulted in strengthening SE are also measures. Just as the court credited the defendant’s prodigious investment of time and talent into SE so could it credit plaintiff’s input.” As to his claim she waived application of the statute by failing to originally seek relief under it, the court found in Allard that “parties have no discernible rights to waive under . . . MCL 552.401.” The trial court did not clearly err in finding that defendant’s interest in CCB was a passive investment and thus, it “was properly excluded from the marital estate.” Finally, it clarified that plaintiff was to be awarded nonmodifiable spousal support in gross. Because it “was subject to the contingencies of death or remarriage and” was a definite sum to be paid in installments, this was not clearly erroneous.