Divorce; Credibility; The trial court’s factual findings as to marital debt; Division of marital debt; Distribution of marital property; Earning capacity; Distinguishing Berger v Berger

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that defendant-ex-husband’s “testimony was less than credible and that any difficulties in his testimony was not based upon a language barrier.” It also held that the trial court did not err in its division of marital debt and that its marital property distribution was not inequitable. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s assessment of his credibility, noting its findings were “supported by the record, which reflects that [he] often declined to directly answer questions and . . . would testify to one version of events only to . . . testify to the exact opposite.” His demeanor, which included “‘smiling’ during his testimony was noted on the record by the trial court.” Also, notwithstanding his “multiple convictions for domestic violence and a conviction of stalking, [he] represented to the [trial] court that he was the ‘victim’ and that he had never harmed” plaintiff-ex-wife. Further, the trial “court’s finding that he outright lied was based upon three different circumstances.” And the record did “not support his assertion that his testimony was negatively impacted by a language barrier.” The court also rejected his challenges to some of the trial court’s factual findings related to the marital debt. “Given that the testimony supports the . . . finding that the debt was for payment of [his] legal fees in his criminal cases and in his divorce case, the [trial] court did not err by finding that the debt was not marital debt and should be [his] sole responsibility.” In addition, “there was no competent evidence presented as to the vehicles values or loan balances.” Further, given that the trial “court’s decision to award the parties the vehicles in their possession and the debts associated with them, [its] failure to divide the repair-bill debt on” defendant’s vehicle did not warrant reversal. The court next rejected his argument that the trial court erred by not dividing marital debts in the form of loans that the parties received when purchasing marital property. The trial court did not “err by finding that the credit card debt was not marital debt because it was used to pay [his] attorney fees and legal costs in his criminal cases and in the divorce proceedings. It also did not err by awarding the parties the debts related to their respective vehicles “given that no evidence was admitted to establish the value of the vehicles and the amount of debt owed on the vehicle awarded to” defendant. And it did not err by “finding that the loans for the purchase of various properties and that the loans for the payment of” his legal fees were fabricated. Finally, the court rejected his claim that the trial court’s property division was inequitable and was based upon its disproportionate consideration of his fault in causing the breakdown of the marital relationship. Its “consideration of [his] fault in causing a breakdown in the marital relationship and his ongoing harassment of [plaintiff] is a factor that supported [its] decision to award a larger share of the marital estate to” her. Affirmed.