Divorce; Division of the marital estate; Reeves v Reeves; Korth v Korth; Marital property; Cunningham v Cunningham; The trial court’s findings of fact; MCR 2.517(A)(1) & (2); Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd; Judgment of divorce (JOD)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-ex-wife half of the “net marital equity” in the parties’ marital home, and that its findings of fact were adequate. In the JOD, the trial court awarded plaintiff-ex-husband the house, but ordered him to pay defendant $123,571 “‘representing one-half of the net marital equity.’” It also awarded him $38,098.84 from plaintiff’s 401(k), which equalized the marital increase in their 401(k) accounts. Lastly, it awarded the parties their own respective personal property and bank accounts, and awarded defendant a life insurance policy. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court: (1) erred by awarding defendant half of the increase in the value of the home’s equity that occurred during the marriage, and (2) “failed to articulate adequate findings and conclusions regarding the marital or separate character of the increase in the home’s equity value, because it merely adopted the law, logic, and rationale of” her trial briefs. The court agreed “with plaintiff that the trial court certainly could have presented its findings more fully and explicitly. We believe, however, that they make sufficiently clear in this case that the trial court found that the increase in the value of the home’s equity that occurred during the marriage was marital property.” Indeed, the trial “court reinforced that understanding of its determination in its subsequent opinion denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration when it stated that ‘[t]he division of the marital estate is not one of pinpoint precision of one asset but an assessment of the entire estate including offsets where equity can be had and supported by the evidence at hand.’” Moreover, the JOD “awarded $123,571 to defendant ‘representing one-half of the net marital equity’ in the house. We note that $123,571 is exactly half of the increase in the home’s equity value that occurred during the marriage, as calculated by defendant in her supplemental trial brief—further signaling that the [trial] court, consistent with defendant’s briefing, properly distinguished the home equity plaintiff built up before the marriage from the increase in equity that took place during the marriage, and treated only the latter as marital property subject to equitable division.” The trial “court’s findings were adequate in this case to demonstrate that [it] ‘was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law,’ and ‘appellate review would not be facilitated by requiring further explanation.’” Affirmed.