Where a judgment of divorce has been challenged on appeal, the order for spousal support must be vacated under Richards v Richards , 310 Mich App 683; 874 NW2d 704 (2015).
“Plaintiff-appellant-wife, Jill Marie Pastoriza, also known as Jill Marie Baker, appeals as of right portions of the trial court’s judgment of divorce. First, plaintiff asserts that the trial court acted outside of its authority by awarding spousal support that was not permanent and in an amount that was not equitable considering the parties’ positions. Second, concerning the division of marital property, plaintiff challenges the court’s division of the parties’ 401(k) accounts and the valuation of their medical practice. Third, plaintiff asserts that the court erred by denying her request for attorney fees. Finally, plaintiff contends that this Court should remand this case to another judge because the presiding judge improperly inserted himself in the litigation and failed to make the required findings, which resulted in the inequitable spousal-support determination and property division. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings before a different judge.
“First, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s spousal-support award. She asserts that the court erred by not awarding permanent support, by including an optional education provision for plaintiff to return to school, and by awarding an inequitable award amount. We agree in part.
“Taken together, the Uniform Spousal Support order and the language in the judgment closely resembles the problematic language from Richards . Therefore, as we did in Richards , we vacate the order for spousal support.
“Because we vacate the order for spousal support, we need not address plaintiff’s arguments with respect to the amount of spousal support awarded. We do so, however, because we are troubled by the considerations and conclusions that informed the trial court’s spousal support order.
“What concerns us is the trial court’s emphasis on a non-enumerated factor: the career the trial court determines a party best-suited to pursue.
“Yes, a trial court should consider the abilities of parties to work, but the trial court must not serve as career coordinator. Make no mistake, in this panel’s view, teaching is one of the most difficult, honorable, and important professions a person can choose. It is simply not in the province of the trial court to say that someone who possesses almost no teaching experience, and has never indicated an interest in pursuing a teaching career, should do so. That falls outside the proscribed considerations in determining spousal support. Nevertheless, the court did not make the spousal support contingent on this particular career path, and considered other appropriate factors when arriving at the $1,000 per month amount. However, because the court ultimately issued a time-limited spousal support award that was not agreed to by the parties and that is contrary to statutory law, we must vacate the spousal support award on these grounds.”
Pastoriza v. Pastoriza; MiLW 08-108053, 13 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Borrello, J., Swartzle, J., Young, J.; on appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Anne Argiroff for appellant; Jordan M. Ahlers for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0