Divorce judgment; Division of marital estate; Business valuation; Holder’s interest method; Fair market value; Kowalesky v Kowalesky; Olson v Olson; Separate property; Gift; Commingling; MCL 552.401; Reeves v Reeves; Spousal support; MCL 552.23; Berger v Berger; Attorney fees; MCL 552.13; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(a) & (b); Inability to pay; Litigation misconduct; Myland v Myland; Reed v Reed

The court held that the trial court did not err in valuing the marital businesses or treating the $250,000 down payment as defendant-ex-husband’s separate property, and did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support or denying additional attorney fees. The parties divorced after more than 30 years of marriage. Both challenged portions of the judgment dividing the marital estate, awarding plaintiff-ex-wife $3,500 in monthly spousal support for 96 months, and denying her request for more attorney fees. On appeal, the court held that the trial court had “great latitude” in valuing the parties’ disputed business interests, properly adopted plaintiff’s expert’s $517,000 valuation of a plastic surgery practice, and permissibly valued a dental practice at $304,634.50 by averaging the experts’ competing figures after finding the practice had “substantial value” and was a “healthy going concern.” The court next held that the $250,000 down payment retained its separate character because it came from defendant’s father, was traceable to that gift, and was not treated by the parties as marital property. It also held that the spousal-support award was fair where the trial court considered the relevant factors, found plaintiff had been “awarded substantial assets or cash that would allow [her] to live comfortably,” and found she was “able to work and provide for” herself. Finally, the court held that additional attorney fees were properly denied because plaintiff did not show she was unable to bear the expense or that defendant’s conduct caused the requested fees. Affirmed.