Divorce; Division of marital property; Cunningham v Cunningham; Demman v Demman; Equitable distribution; Cassidy v Cassidy; Exclusion of witnesses; MCR 2.401(I)(1) & (2); Failure to timely file a witness list; Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin

The court held that the trial court did not err by including defendant-ex-wife’s father’s trust in the marital estate and considering it in the division of the estate, and did not abuse its discretion by barring her from calling witnesses at trial. The parties divorced after 44 years. As to the division of marital property, the trial court awarded plaintiff-ex-husband his pension, the parties were each awarded a one-half interest in the proceeds from the sale of defendant’s father’s Florida condominium and an uncashed check for the sale of his Michigan home, while defendant was awarded 100% of the remaining assets of her father’s trust. Plaintiff was awarded the marital home, the farm and truck he inherited from his father, his bank account, a pontoon boat, and his defunct business. The parties were also each awarded a one-half interest in several different bank accounts. Plaintiff’s total award was $998,061.25. Defendant’s total award was $4,301,885.25. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by including the trust in the marital estate and considering it in the division of the estate because the trust was her separate property and not part of the marital estate. “Because the parties discussed the trust as being marital property many times throughout their marriage and intended to use the trust for their retirement,” the trial court did not err by including “defendant’s inheritance in the marital estate.” In addition, because the trial court “properly assessed plaintiff’s needs and appropriately considered defendant’s inheritance” in the distribution of property, it did not err by finding “defendant’s inheritance was marital property subject to distribution.” Further, because the trial court “properly assessed all relevant factors concerning the inclusion of defendant’s inheritance” as marital property, the trial court did not err by finding defendant’s “inheritance from her father’s trust was marital property to be considered in distributing the marital estate.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it barred her from calling any witnesses to testify at trial other than herself. “Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact plaintiff was equally barred from presenting witnesses at trial, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting defendant from presenting witnesses at trial beyond her own testimony.” Affirmed.