Divorce; Spousal support; MCL 552.23(1); Olson v Olson; The trial court’s factual findings on spousal support; Butler v Simmons-Butler; Effect of the trial court’s failure to follow its remand instructions; Glenn v TPI Petroleum, Inc; Whether a trial court may consider prior periods of cohabitation to justify an award of spousal support; Korth v Korth; Attorney fees; Reasonableness; Smith v Khouri

Holding that the trial court failed to make the required findings on the relevant spousal support factors, but that its determination of reasonable attorney fees fell within the range of principled outcomes, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The trial court awarded spousal support and attorney fees for defendant-ex-wife. In a prior appeal, the court ordered the trial court to justify or modify its award of spousal support with sufficient factual findings and to conduct a hearing to determine the reasonableness of services rendered by defendant’s attorney. On remand, the trial court again awarded spousal support and attorney fees for defendant. In the present appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff-ex-husband that the trial court failed to adequately address the spousal support factors. “On remand, the trial court legally erred by failing to comply with” the court’s instructions. Its “opinion again ‘listed facts that corresponded to some of the relevant factors’ but did not explain how those facts justified the five-year award of spousal support. [It] also failed to make adequate findings on several relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the parties’ ability to work, their past relations and conduct, their needs, their prior standard of living, and principles of equity.” The court also agreed with plaintiff that the trial court may not consider prior periods of cohabitation to justify an award of spousal support. “On a second remand, the trial court must articulate its findings on all relevant spousal support factors and explain whether those factors justify the current five-year award or warrant modification of the award.” In doing so, it “should not rely on the length of the parties’ relationship as a basis for a longer award of spousal support.” Finally, however, the court rejected plaintiff’s request that it set aside the award of attorney fees because the amount ordered by the trial court was unreasonable. “Plaintiff’s argument goes no further than emphasizing the disparity in attorney fees incurred by the parties. But plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the trial court reduced the amount requested in defendant’s bill of costs by nearly $13,000. In addition, by disclaiming any challenge to the reasonableness of specific services performed by defendant’s counsel, plaintiff has provided no basis by which we could conclude that the trial court’s reasonableness determination fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes.” The court retained jurisdiction.