Default judgment of divorce; Motion to set aside default; MCR 3.210(B); Good cause; Koy v Koy; Property division; Sparks v Sparks; Defaulted party participation; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Kessler v Kessler; Sabatine v Sabatine; Best interests; MCL 722.23; Kuebler v Kuebler

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-husband’s motion to set aside the default or by dividing the marital property, but erred by awarding plaintiff-wife sole custody without making required custody findings. Defendant moved to Turkey before plaintiff filed for divorce and later sought to set aside the default based on unspecified psychological conditions. The court first held that defendant failed to show good cause under MCR 3.210(B) because he did not identify a diagnosis, provide documentation, or explain how his condition prevented participation, and the trial court found “[t]here is nothing that’s been presented to the Court” establishing his alleged issues. The court next held that the property division was equitable despite limited findings because the record showed defendant sold clinics for about $2,000,000, took about $575,000 when he left the country, provided no support, and left plaintiff and the children with “no resources.” The court reasoned that awarding plaintiff the marital home compensated her for her share of the unavailable business-sale proceeds, and it was not left with a firm conviction that the division was inequitable. But the court vacated the custody ruling because the trial court did not first determine whether ECE existed. The court held this was “clear error” because a trial court must make that determination before any custody decision, and on remand it must consider up-to-date information and make best-interest findings under MCL 722.23. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.