Divorce; Property distribution; Effect of a settlement agreement; Modification of spousal support; MCL 552.603; Division of social security benefits; Whether social security benefits are a marital asset; Biondo v Biondo; Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits

The court held that the trial court erred by dividing plaintiff-ex-husband’s social security benefits, and by failing to set the date he moved to modify spousal support as the effective date of its order. It also held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its modification of spousal support, its error concerning the property division could affect the amount of support warranted. Thus, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The parties previously entered into a consent judgment and a property settlement that disposed of their marital assets, but they were unable to agree on spousal support. On remand from a previous appeal, the trial court ordered plaintiff to pay defendant-ex-wife one-half of his monthly gross social security benefits pursuant to the parties’ contracted property settlement, and modified spousal support to award defendant $1,000 monthly support. In the present appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by setting 7/1/17, as the effective date of its final order. “Pursuant to the plain, unambiguous language in MCL 552.603(2), retroactive modification of spousal support is permissible only from the date that notice of a petition to amend support is given, i.e., when husband filed his motion to eliminate support.” Here, while the “final order’s effective date was apparently based on the parties’ stipulation as to when the property division should have taken effect, no such stipulation was made specific to the support award.” As such, the “modification of support should have been effective” 4/3/17. The court next found that the trial court erred by dividing plaintiff’s social security benefits pursuant to the parties’ property settlement, but not for his argued reasons. “The trial court had no power to divide [his] social security benefits or otherwise enforce any transfer or assignment thereof.” As such, it was required to vacate the trial court’s division of his social security pursuant to the parties’ property settlement. “Given this conclusion, the parties’ dispute as to whether the property settlement was intended to automatically entitle wife to half of husband’s SSDI benefits—and any ambiguity in the agreement on this matter—is irrelevant.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court improperly considered his pension and otherwise used a faulty mechanism to determine its support award. “[T]he trial court adhered to our instruction in its modification of support.” It also “sufficiently addressed the other relevant considerations surrounding” defendant’s pension, and its “modified support award was fair and equitable in light of the facts.”