Divorce; Spousal support; MCL 552.28; Richards v Richards; Sparks v Sparks; Noncompliance with MCR 7.212(C)(6) on appeal; Failure to support an argument

Noting that plaintiff-ex-husband did not comply with MCR 7.212(C)(6) and simply “referenced MCL 522.28 to support his argument” on appeal, the court affirmed the divorce judgment including a spousal support award for defendant-ex-wife. In dividing up the parties’ assets and liabilities, the trial court concluded “defendant owed plaintiff approximately $130,000 as a payment to equalize the property award. But, [it] also found that [she] was entitled to $200,000 in spousal support from plaintiff, payable at a rate of $20,000 a year for 10 years. Accordingly, [it] ‘offset’ the $130,000 cash equalizer payment owed by defendant to plaintiff from the spousal support award. The remaining spousal support of $70,000 . . . was to be paid in a five-year period. Plaintiff questioned whether the trial court converted a modifiable spousal support award under MCL 522.28 to nonmodifiable spousal support, challenging how it could be recouped if defendant remarried.” However, there was no evidence that she intended to remarry. “The trial court rejected plaintiff’s challenge as speculative.” The court noted that he filed his brief on appeal but failed to order the bench trial transcripts. He later ordered and filed them but “did not seek to amend his brief on appeal to conform to the court rule.” In addition, he “merely referenced MCL 522.28 to support his argument that the trial court converted the spousal support award to nonmodifiable.” The court noted that under that statute, “a trial court retains the authority to modify judgments concerning spousal support after the entry of the judgment, particularly if there is a change in circumstances.” In addition, it “may modify an alimony provision to realign the judgment to reflect the true facts of the case.” The court added that “a ‘bright-line’ rule addressing when spousal support may be modified is not contained within the plain language of MCL 552.28.” It found that plaintiff’s assertion “he was left without a remedy if defendant remarries is not supported by this caselaw. Finally,” it rejected his claim “that the trial court focused on equity and did not adequately consider the” Sparks factors. This assertion was “belied by the trial court’s extensive and thorough oral ruling.”