Divorce; Marital home; Marital property; Aggrieved party; MCR 7.203(A); Appeal of right; Concrete & particularized injury; Federated Ins Co v Oakland Cnty Rd Comm’n; Third-party rights; Warth v Seldin; Nonparty intervention; Zalewski v Zalewski

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because defendant-husband was not an aggrieved party entitled to appeal as of right. In the divorce judgment, the trial court found defendant and his father conspired to defraud plaintiff-wife of her share of the marital home’s value, determined plaintiff was entitled to 25% of the home’s value, and gave defendant two options, paying that amount or selling the home and paying her 25% of the proceeds. On appeal, the court held that defendant failed to identify a concrete injury from the challenged sale option. It reasoned that the judgment “gives him more options than he desires,” and he could avoid the challenged sale remedy by choosing the uncontested option of paying plaintiff 25% of the appraised value. The court also noted that defendant framed his arguments around his father’s rights, including a request to strike any provision allowing “the house of his father” to be sold. Because a litigant generally cannot rest a claim on third-party rights, and defendant’s father did not intervene, defendant could not pursue his father’s interests by proxy. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.