Divorce; Spousal support; MCL 552.23(1); Richards v Richards

Concluding that defendant-ex-wife failed to show that the trial court clearly erred in considering the spousal support factors, the court held that she was not entitled to modification or reversal of its decision not to award spousal support. The trial court analyzed each of the relevant factors in its opinion following the divorce trial. The record supported its findings as to the parties’ ability to pay alimony. “The trial court found that plaintiff ‘incurred significant debt’ to pay the family’s ‘basic living expenses’” and that going forward, the parties would “each have similar but separate expenses . . . .” It additionally determined “that plaintiff’s ‘income alone [was] sufficient to pay his own expenses, including the child support debt to [d]efendant,’ but did ‘not provide an ability to pay alimony, as well.’” Based on the record, the court could not conclude that its findings as to each party’s gross annual income constituted clear error. While defendant asserted that the trial erroneously found no evidence showed she had a diminished capacity to work, the record established that it considered her “particular circumstances and responsibilities in making its spousal support decision.” It analyzed the parties’ present situation, “their health, parental obligations, and needs. The trial court did not ignore defendant’s financial condition nor disregard her care for the parties’ special needs adult son.” As to the parties’ past relations and conduct factor, the “trial court was in the best position to make findings regarding allegations of domestic violence and abuse and the credibility of the parties in this regard.” Further, it did not clearly err in determining “that no evidence supported defendant’s allegations of plaintiff’s infidelity.” The court also found no clear error in its findings as to the source and amount of property awarded factor, or in its findings as to the parties’ present situation. It noted they both were employed, and found “that plaintiff’s employment ‘appear[ed] permanent’ and that defendant ‘may have an[] increased earning ability in the future as she has just entered her current workforce.’ The trial court also noted that although defendant had family support at the time of the opinion, plaintiff did not.” It further found that they each “needed to ‘secure their own separate housing and will have their own regular living expenses in the future.’” The evidence supported these findings. Affirmed.