Diephouse v. Diephouse

6 Citing cases

  1. Sullivan v. Sullivan

    175 Mich. App. 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    MCR 7.216(A)(7). See Thomas v Thomas (After Remand), 164 Mich. App. 618, 624; 417 N.W.2d 563 (1987); Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983). Our review of the record persuades us that there is serious doubt whether defendant, in spite of her best efforts, will be able to fully support herself at the end of the four-year period and that it would be inequitable to eliminate alimony as a source of support in this case.

  2. Thomas v. Thomas

    164 Mich. App. 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    In Thomas, supra, we accepted that figure as accurate and awarded defendant one-eighth thereof, or $42,208, and ordered plaintiff to pay to defendant such amount over a five-year period in equal monthly payments.

    Although we do not read Woodworth as compelling compensation for the loss of future earnings in every instance, see Watling v Watling, 127 Mich. App. 624, 625-628; 339 N.W.2d 505 (1983), we conclude that the method of compensation used by the trial court failed to achieve an equitable result. Rather than remand for another evaluation of the law degree, we exercise de novo review of the evidence to decide upon an appropriate award. See Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983); MCR 7.216(A)(7). We are cognizant that a split exists in this Court as to the propriety of treating an advanced degree as a marital asset.

  3. DeVries v. DeVries

    413 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times

    Because a divorce judgment is equitable in nature, appellate review is de novo. See Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526, 530; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983); Hensley v Hensley, 357 Mich. 3, 5-6; 97 N.W.2d 615 (1959). However, this Court's review of child custody determinations is limited by MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8), which provides:

  4. Vance v. Vance

    406 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    In Vance, the Court acknowledged that the husband earned a net salary of $560 per week and could afford the payment of alimony while the wife earned only $400 per month.

    However, we give grave consideration to the trial court's findings and will not reverse unless we are convinced that we would have come to a different conclusion if we were in the trial court's place. Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526, 530; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983). Factors to be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded include: past relations and conduct of the parties, length of the marriage, ability of the parties to work, source and amount of property awarded to the parties, age of the parties, ability of plaintiff to pay alimony, the present situation of the parties, the needs, health, and prior standard of living of the parties, whether the parties support others, and general equity principles.

  5. Rust v. Rust

    373 N.W.2d 197 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Plaintiff was not awarded a sum certain and there is no requirement that pension benefits be distributed in that manner. Perry, supra, and Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983). This Court has allowed pension benefits to be awarded as alimony and permitted such payments to be halted if the spouse remarries.

  6. Perry v. Perry

    350 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 15 times
    In Perry v. Perry, 133 Mich App 453, 457-458; 350 NW2d 275 (1984), this Court noted that a retirement "plan is said to have vested when the employee's right to pension funds becomes irrevocable and will survive voluntary termination of employment. It is said to have matured when the employee acquires an unconditional right to immediate payment, whether or not that right is exercised."

    Such calculation should be within the expertise of any attorney. As to the use of alimony as an offset to retirement benefits, we must be guided by general rules recently set out in Diephouse v Diephouse, 127 Mich. App. 526, 530-531; 339 N.W.2d 42 (1983), which are as follows: "The lower court's power to award alimony is based upon MCL 552.23; MSA 25.103.