Divorce; Spousal support; MCL 552.28; Award of nonmodifiable alimony in gross; Bonfiglio v Pring; Staple v Staple; Award of two bank accounts as separate property; Cunningham v Cunningham

The court rejected defendant-ex-wife’s claim that the trial court erred in ordering nonmodifiable alimony in gross, concluding that its “findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and its ruling was not inequitable.” It also upheld the award of two accounts to plaintiff-ex-husband as separate property, determining that defendant did not support her argument in the trial court “with sufficient evidence, and she failed to satisfy her burden of proof.” Thus, it affirmed the divorce judgment. The “trial court specifically provided in the judgment that it was not awarding spousal support to either party, but that it was ‘increas[ing] the property settlement by $12,000 as alimony in gross.’ [It] clearly expressed, on the trial date and during the subsequent motion hearing, that it was ordering a nonmodifiable $12,000 award as alimony in gross, rather than as spousal support.” The court explained in Staple “that ‘alimony in gross is not really alimony intended for the maintenance of a spouse, but rather is in the nature of a division of property. Accordingly, alimony in gross is considered nonmodifiable and exempt from modification under MCL 552.28.’ Here, although the trial court noted that defendant had immediate need for the money, the award was not intended for [her] ongoing maintenance and was, instead, part of the property division, as [it] explicitly stated.” She further asserted that it “considered the spousal-support factors, but failed to comply with MCL 552.13 and 552.28[.]” The court noted that it “was appropriate for the trial court to consider these factors to determine whether it should award spousal support, but the trial court’s thorough consideration did not require it to order ongoing, modifiable spousal support. Instead, that decision was within [its] discretion.” As to the award of the accounts, plaintiff owned them “before the marriage, they were only in his name, and only he deposited into the accounts, which included his military pay and disability. Funds from the accounts were used for some marital expenses, but defendant did not have access to the accounts and did not know how much money was in them when the parties got married.” While she produced evidence of the account values as of 4/23, there was no indication whether they “differed from when the parties got married or if [they] held employment, retirement, or disability pay.”