Opinion
Docket No. 105466.
Decided August 22, 1989. Leave to appeal applied for.
Keleher Brunner (by Thomas N. Brunner), for plaintiff.
John W. Claire, and Paul R. Spaniola, of Counsel, for defendant.
Before: DANHOF, C.J., and CYNAR and WEAVER, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from the property settlement provisions of a Mason Circuit Court judgment of divorce. We affirm.
The parties began living together in 1968 and were married on June 15, 1983. They were separated on February 25, 1986. At the time of the trial, plaintiff was sixty-nine years old and defendant was seventy-two years old.
Defendant's only claim on appeal is that the lower court erred in considering the parties' period of unmarried cohabitation when dividing the parties' property. The court found that the parties had a long-term relationship based on evidence that, since 1968, the parties held themselves out as husband and wife, and plaintiff essentially ran defendant's motel. Defendant ran his used car business. The lower court divided the parties' property according to what the court considered to be the equitable interest due each party with regard to particular items.
The division of marital property is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Spooner v Spooner, 175 Mich. App. 169, 172; 437 N.W.2d 346 (1989). This Court reviews property settlements de novo on the record. However, we will not reverse or modify the property division unless we are convinced that we would have reached another result if we had occupied the trial court's position. Perrin v Perrin, 169 Mich. App. 18, 22; 425 N.W.2d 494 (1988).
The trial court has great discretion in the adjustment of property rights upon divorce. The objective in arriving at a property settlement is to reach a fair and equitable division in light of all the circumstances. There are no set mathematical formulas governing a division of property. Vance v Vance, 159 Mich. App. 381, 385-386; 406 N.W.2d 497 (1987), lv den 429 Mich. 870 (1987); Bone v Bone, 148 Mich. App. 834, 838; 385 N.W.2d 706 (1986). The division does not have to be equal, but it must be equitable. Christofferson v Christofferson, 363 Mich. 421, 426; 109 N.W.2d 848 (1961). To reach an equitable division of property, the trial court should consider the duration of the marriage, each party's contribution to the marital estate, each party's station in life and earning ability, each party's needs, fault or past misconduct, and other equitable circumstances. Spooner, supra, p 172; Vance, supra, p 386; Parrish v Parrish, 138 Mich. App. 546, 558; 361 N.W.2d 366 (1984).
Defendant argues that he and plaintiff had a short-term marriage and that this Court should divide their property so as to place them at approximately the same positions which they occupied prior to their marriage. We do not favor this approach to a property settlement. See Bone, supra, p 837. We are unpersuaded by defendant's argument because it fails to take into account all of the factors which are relevant to the equitable division of the parties' property. Defendant also argues that if we affirm the lower court's decision, then we will condone unmarried cohabitation, reinstitute common-law marriage, and undermine the integrity of the institution of marriage. We find no merit in this argument. Defendant's reliance on cases involving unmarried parties is misplaced. Here, the parties were married.
After considering all of the circumstances which are relevant to the equitable division of the parties' property, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We are not convinced that we would have reached a different result if we had occupied the trial court's position.
Affirmed.