Divorce; Asset distribution; Marital home sale proceeds; Personal property; One party’s IRA; Spousal support; MCL 552.23(1); Woodington v Shokoohi

The court vacated the trial court’s ruling as to the distribution of defendant-ex-husband’s IRA and remanded for further proceedings as to that issue but otherwise affirmed its asset distribution and the decision not to award him spousal support. He challenged various aspects of the asset distribution, including the award, through “setoffs,” to plaintiff of approximately $28,000 of the $266,000 obtained in the sale of the marital home before the remaining proceeds were divided evenly. It awarded her “6,924.50 out of the proceeds as reimbursement for sale-preparation activities” and the court concluded that the record provided support for that decision. It also provided support for the decision to award her “$15,000 to equalize a withdrawal made by defendant from an E*TRADE account, and $3,293 to equalize an income-tax payment plaintiff had made.” Further, the court upheld the ruling “that each party would retain the personal property currently in his or her possession.” As to defendant’s IRA, the trial court awarded him, “as his separate premarital property, the value of the IRA on the date of the parties’ marriage, and then split the remaining balance of the account equally between the parties.” He asserted it erred in including in that “balance (1) the amount in the IRA attributable to [his] pension buyout, which he received during the marriage but which consisted entirely of money earned and accrued prior to the marriage; and (2) the amount in the IRA attributable to the appreciation of his premarital property[.]” Based on the record, the court saw “some conceivable merit in these arguments, but the trial court’s findings are insufficient to permit due appellate review of them.” It noted that “the trial court did not address the pension buyout or explain why it may be properly subject to division between the parties.” Given the circumstances, it concluded that a remand for the trial court to specifically address the matter was appropriate. It also remanded as to “how to characterize and distribute the appreciation of defendant’s IRA that occurred during the parties’ marriage.” As to spousal support, the trial court recognized the governing standards, and the court saw no reversible error in its “application of them to defendant’s request[.]”