Divorce; The Domestic Relations Arbitration Act; MCL 600.5072; Division of personal property; Effect of allegations of domestic abuse; Spousal support; Attorney fees; Judgment of divorce (JOD); Personal protection order (PPO)

The trial court’s judgment as to arbitration of the division of the parties’ personal property was vacated, as was its “denial of spousal support and attorney fees for” plaintiff-ex-wife. The JOD was affirmed in all other respects and the case was remanded. The court concluded that because “the parties did not agree to arbitration as specified by MCL 600.5072, the trial court was not authorized to order [them] to participate in arbitration to divide their personal property.” Defendant-ex-husband argued “that the trial court’s error in this regard is harmless,” but the court disagreed. “Before arbitration commences in a divorce action, there must be a written agreement between the parties, MCL 600.5071, and [they] must verify in writing or on the record that they were informed of the scope of the arbitration and the arbitrator’s powers, as well as the finality of the arbitration award, and that the arbitration is voluntary, as required by MCL 600.5072.” While the parties “signed the judgment indicating their consent, absent [their] agreement complying with MCL 600.5071 and MCL 600.5072, the trial court was not authorized to order [them] to arbitrate the division of their personal property.” The court also found “that arbitration was not appropriate under MCL 600.5072(2) because this case involves allegations of domestic abuse.” During the trial court proceedings, “the trial court issued plaintiff a [PPO] against defendant. [It] found convincing plaintiff’s testimony that defendant was physically and emotionally abusive to [her] during the marriage, and found that [her] testimony regarding the abuse was corroborated by other witnesses. Given the finding of domestic violence, arbitration in this case is not recommended. Moreover, absent the parties’ waivers in compliance with MCL 600.5072 indicating [their] agreement to arbitrate despite the finding of domestic violence, the trial court was precluded from ordering [them] to arbitrate the division of their personal property.” The court also agreed with plaintiff “that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying her request for spousal support.” She contended that the trial court’s ruling was “not supported by the factual findings.” The court agreed. It noted that she “received the marital home encumbered by over $16,000 in debt, and two income-producing rental properties, which generate $33,600 annually.” Because she had “no other income and very limited means of obtaining income, without spousal support plaintiff will be compelled to deplete her assets to pay her living expenses. By contrast, defendant received two income-producing properties generating $30,000 annually in addition to his salary, for a total of over $130,000 yearly, creating a significant disparity in the parties’ financial resources. Because the trial court’s denial of spousal support for plaintiff is not consistent with [its] findings of fact and is almost certain to impoverish plaintiff,” the court concluded that it “abused its discretion by denying spousal support for plaintiff.” It also found the trial court abused its discretion as to attorney fees.