Divorce; Division of property; Donahue v Donahue; Wiand v Wiand; Spousal support; Attorney fees

The court affirmed “the trial court’s decision concerning the division of property.” Also, the trial court did not abuse “its discretion by imputing income to defendant and awarding plaintiff spousal support.” Finally, the “trial court did not clearly err by concluding that defendant ha[d] the ability to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees.” As to the division of the Bloomfield Hills (a second property) property, the court held that given “that the property was purchased during the marriage, we see no error in the [trial] court’s conclusion that it was marital property, and that plaintiff was entitled to an equitable distribution of the property.” As to the Sterling Heights (family residence) property, given “the evidence presented and the credibility determinations, the trial court did not clearly err by concluding that defendant dissipated marital assets.” Finally, the court concluded that considering “the trial court’s analysis as a whole, the division of assets was fair and equitable on the facts of this case.” As to spousal support, “the trial court made extensive findings of fact, none of which were clearly erroneous. Further, the trial court’s award of spousal support was just and reasonable under the circumstances. Indeed, the trial court balanced the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither would be impoverished.”