Divorce; Division of premarital equity in the home; Invading a party’s separate estate; MCL 552.401; Reeves v Reeves; Findings on the Sparks v Sparks factors; Waiver of an issue

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in awarding plaintiff-ex-wife half the premarital equity in the parties’ home, the court affirmed the divorce judgment. Defendant-ex-husband did ‘not dispute the majority of the trial court’s findings on the Sparks factors[.]” He only objected to its “weighing of the ‘general principles of equity’ factor[,]” under which it “found that the home was the parties’ joint venture because they chose it together, moved in together, and shared its obligations equally.” Defendant emphasized “that the home was purchased with a mortgage solely in his name before the marriage with his down payment, and he characterizes the premarital relationship as that of a landlord and tenant. But the trial court concluded that the home was commingled with marital assets such that it became marital property. In doing so, [it] observed that the parties both contributed to the home’s acquisition, that they split bills evenly, that they made joint decisions about repairs and maintenance, and that they worked on the home together. In sum, [it] found that everything relating to the home was done together with the parties’ intent to treat the residence as a marital home from the inception of its purchase. Given” their testimony to this effect, the court found no clear error. It also found “no clear error in awarding premarital equity in the home to plaintiff given that she ‘contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property.’” Defendant did not point to any “record evidence that he had a lease with plaintiff such that the relationship was merely that of a landlord and tenant. Nor was the trial court required to weigh [his] taking on the mortgage more heavily than, or to the exclusion of, other factors, especially when it was undisputed that the parties shared equally in the home payments and related costs and expenses. And to the extent that [it] credited plaintiff’s testimony over defendant’s” the court noted it defers to a trial court’s findings that are based on witness credibility. Finally, it held that equally “splitting the increase in value from the purchase date constitutes an equitable division of the marital asset.”