e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86094
Opinion Date : 07/13/2026
e-Journal Date : 07/20/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Williams v. Williams
Practice Area(s) : Attorneys Family Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Rick, Murray, and Borrello
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Property division; Separate property; Lawsuit settlement; Compensatory damages; MCL 552.23(1); MCL 552.401; Pickering v Pickering; Spousal support; Richards v Richards; Attorney fees; MCL 552.13(1); MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b); Discovery misconduct; Marital debt; Credibility

Summary

The court held that the trial court’s property distribution, spousal-support award, and attorney-fee award in the parties’ divorce judgment were equitable and not an abuse of discretion. Defendant-husband argued the trial court used the property division to punish him, but the court held that the record showed the trial court relied on equity, including the parties’ earning abilities, their current financial status, and the husband’s failure to provide “complete financial documentation.” The court first upheld the award to plaintiff-wife of half the lost-wages portion of the husband’s wrongful termination lawsuit settlement because those wages “would have been earned prior to the divorce.” It also upheld the award of 25% of the compensatory-damages portion, even though such damages are typically separate property, because the trial court could invade separate property under MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401, and the record showed the husband attempted to conceal information about the lawsuit settlement. The court next held that the husband was properly made solely responsible for alleged loans from his brother because the wife did not know about or consent to them, the loans “lacked any formality,” and the record did not show they were used for marital expenses. The court also upheld spousal support of $500 per month for 12 months because the husband had far greater earning potential, the court found he was “employable,” and he provided no medical documentation supporting his claimed inability to work. Finally, the attorney-fee award was proper under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) because the husband’s bad faith failure to disclose financial information “led to a pro-longed litigation process,” and no evidentiary hearing was required where the record was sufficient. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion