Divorce; Marital property; Spousal support; Ability to work; Ability to pay; Judgment of divorce (JOD)

The court affirmed the trial court’s JOD in which the parties’ house was deemed marital property and defendant-ex-husband’s request for spousal support was denied. The home came into their possession “as part of the distribution of defendant’s father’s trust” after his death. The trust “made no mention of plaintiff; however, the quitclaim deed that transferred ownership of the house named both” parties. Defendant argued that “because the trust named only him as the beneficiary with respect to the house, it was his separate property.” Plaintiff-ex-wife argued that “because she was named in the deed and defendant never challenged the distribution of the trust’s assets in the probate court, the house was marital property.” The court held that because “the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction, the circuit court had no jurisdictional basis upon which to set aside the trustee’s distribution of the marital home. Therefore, the trial court was bound by the terms of the quitclaim deed and correctly concluded that the house was marital property. Even if the house was inherited and deeded exclusively to defendant, the trial court’s finding that the home became marital property over the course of the marriage was not clear error.” The home was treated as marital property. Plaintiff lived there “with defendant beginning in 2009 until the parties separated in 2019. Moreover, significant remodeling was done on the house, and this appeared to have been a joint effort. The parties also made substantial electrical improvements to the property’s pole barn so that plaintiff could operate a business growing marijuana. While the remodeling was paid for by defendant’s father, defendant’s Social Security backpay, and the proceeds from the sale of the farmland, plaintiff also contributed through her own income, credit cards, and by taking out a $5,000 loan.” As to spousal support, regarding the ability to work factor, the trial court determined defendant’s “testimony that he had no additional sources of income outside of his Social Security disability benefits lacked credibility, and this finding was supported by the record.” The court declined to disturb the "finding that defendant underreported his income.” As to ability to pay, the decision to not award support was largely based "on the fact that defendant began making additional income from an unexplained source after the parties separated. The trial court found that the unexplained additional income substantially raised his yearly income to such a level that spousal support was unnecessary.”