Divorce; Equitable distribution of marital property; Sparks v Sparks; Retirement accounts; The marital home

The court held that the trial court did not err in its distribution of the parties’ marital property. When they divorced for a second time, the trial court found they were equally at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. On appeal, the court first found that the trial court’s decision to award defendant-ex-husband 50% of the marital coverture of plaintiff’s 401(k) and 50% of the value that accrued on the IRA accounts and an American Fund account during the marriage was fair and equitable. “In light of the extensive record showing that both parties were hostile toward one another and that they both frequently accused the other of misconduct, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred by finding the parties equally at fault for the breakdown in the marriage.” Given that the trial court appeared “to have addressed the only relevant Sparks factor, and given that [its] findings on that factor” were not erroneous, the court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that the trial court did not adequately address the Sparks factors in distributing the retirement accounts. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings as to the marital home. The trial court’s “determination that the property should be split equally is fair and equitable,” and given that it “decided that the parties were entitled to an equal share of the equity in the house, [its] decision to award” plaintiff only a $31,000 offset for her down payment on the home was also fair and equitable. In addition, its “decision to order that the property be listed for sale and for a purchase offer to be used to indicate the” fair market value was not unwarranted. As the trial court explained, “the purpose was to ‘receive an appropriate offer and go step-by-step’ from there.” Further, it did not err by finding plaintiff “intentionally hindered potential buyers from making reality offers on the house.” And defendant’s “alleged fault for the delay is not a basis for reversing the” trial court’s determination. Finally, plaintiff did not offer any factual support for her contention that the decision not to allow an offset “for the costs of maintaining the marital home after the parties’ separation” was inequitable because she had to pay more. Affirmed.