Opinion
No. 127273.
April 7, 2006.
Summary Dispositions.
SC: 127273, COA: 246321.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals that defendant has an equitable claim of restitution based on uncompensated services performed for plaintiff's law firm. Plaintiff's law firm was a separate asset, not a marital asset, which did not appreciate in value during the time of the parties' marriage as required by MCL 552.401. Because plaintiff's law firm was not a marital asset, the decision in Postema v. Postema, 189 Mich App 89 (1991), and similar cases on which the Court of Appeals relied, cannot justify defendant's claim to equitable restitution. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is denied. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is also considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
WEAVER, J. I would deny leave to appeal as I would not peremptorily reverse this case.