Divorce; Marital home; Donohue v Donohue; Interpretation of a deed; Judgment of divorce (JOD)

The court affirmed the trial court’s JOD dividing the parties’ marital estate, specifically the disposition of the marital home. Defendant-ex-wife first argued that the trial court erred by determining that plaintiff-ex-husband’s “parents held valid ownership interest in the” new residence. Defendant contended “that the evidence established that the parents’ contribution was a loan and that plaintiff misrepresented the nature of the transaction.” She also relied heavily on Donohue.“Because the trial court’s findings are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous,” the court affirmed “the determination that plaintiff’s parents held a nonmarital ownership interest” not a loan. It found that while “defendant presented contrary testimony, conflicting evidence does not establish clear error, and we will not allow defendant to relitigate this matter on appeal.” Thus, the court held that the trial court did not err in finding plaintiff’s parents held a nonmarital ownership interest in the property. Defendant next argued “that, even if plaintiff’s parents held a valid ownership interest, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award defendant 100% of the marital portion of the residence as a sanction for plaintiff’s alleged misconduct.” The trial court “explicitly rejected defendant’s allegations of fraud and deception. Absent such findings, defendant has not demonstrated that an equal division of the marital interest was inequitable. Because the trial court’s dispositional ruling was grounded in supported factual findings, we find no abuse of discretion.” Plaintiff argued on cross-appeal “that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that his parents collectively owned 50% of the property and that he owned the remaining 50%.” The court held that nothing “in the deed expressed an intent to create three equal one-third interests or to allocate ownership based on contribution, as plaintiff suggests. Under Michigan law, plaintiff’s parents took one undivided share as tenants by the entirety, while plaintiff took a separate undivided share.” Thus, the trial court correctly concluded “that plaintiff’s parents together held a single 50% interest as tenants by the entirety, and that plaintiff held the remaining 50% interest, which constituted marital property subject to equitable division.”