GEORGE LOPEZ TO PAY SPOUSAL SUPPORT FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER REVIEWS SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD FROM KALAMAZOO

Here a Flint Michigan Divorce Lawyer  notes the  rights of a celebrity wife to financial support which are similar to a Michigan spouse and using that law. “Ann Lopez, wife of comedian and "Lopez Tonight" host George Lopez, officially filed for divorce Tuesday in Los Angeles, making good on the couple's Sept. 27 announcement of a mutual decision to split up.”[1]“She is requesting spousal support, as well as primary custody of Mayan, reports TMZ.com. “[2]Flint Spousal Support Attorney Terry Bankert 810-235-1970 reviews Michigan Spousal support. (SEO) link to this article.
http://bankertspousalsupport.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-lopez-to-pay-spousal-support.html

Issues: reviewed by Flint Divorce lawyer ;

1.Divorce; Michigan is a no  fault divorce State.

2.Calculation of a spousal support award; Moore v. Moore; Berger v. Berger; Korth v. Korth; Olson v. Olson;

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAS EXTREMLEY CRITICAL OF THE KALAMAZOO COURTS SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISION.

First, parties to a divorce action “are entitled to individual consideration based on the law and facts applicable to their case, not on anecdotal experiences of the trial court.” Cf. Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339, 354; 770 NW2d 77 (2009). [3]

3.MCL 552.23;

WHAT ARE SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISIONS BASED UPON?

A trial court has discretion to award spousal support under MCL 552.23. Korth v Korth,
256 Mich App 286, 288; 662 NW2d 111 (2003). The primary purpose of spousal support is to “balance the incomes and needs of the parties in a way that will not impoverish either party” based on what is “just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.” Moore, 242 Mich App at 654. Among the factors to be considered are:

(1) the past relations and conduct of the parties,

(2) the length of the marriage,

(3)the abilities of the parties to work,

(4) the source and amount of property awarded

to the parties,

(5) the parties’ ages,

(6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony,

(7) the present situation of the parties,

(8) the needs of the parties,

(9) the parties’

health,

(10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is

responsible for the support of others,

(11) contributions of the parties to the joint

estate,

(12) a party’s fault in causing the divorce,

(13) the effect of cohabitation on

a party’s financial status, and

(14) general principles of equity [Olson v Olson,

256 Mich App 619, 631; 671 NW2d 64 (2003) (citations omitted).]

4.Consideration of the parties' ages, health, abilities to work and to pay alimony, needs, and prior standard of living;

“The trial court should make specific factual findings regarding the factors that are relevant to the particular case.” Korth, 256 Mich App at 289.[3]


Plaintiff testified that she could not work and that she suffered numbness in her extremities, blurred vision, clumsiness, confusion, lack of bladder control, chronic fatigue, drowsiness, vertigo, and depression. [3]

5.Imputing income; Brausch v. Brausch;

6.Failure to consider the costs of a party's COBRA health insurance; Voukatidis v. Voukatidis; [3]


7.Whether a trial court may disregard MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) when considering a request for attorney fees based on need; Reed v. Reed; Stallworth v. Stallworth; Gates v. Gates; Maake v. Maake;

8.Appellate attorney fees; MCR 3.206(C)(1); Whether the trial court should have enforced the parties' alleged stipulation requiring the defendant-husband to sell a vehicle and use the proceeds to pay marital debt; MacInnes v. MacInnes; MCR 2.507(G); Kyser v. Kyser


KALAMAZOO DIVORCE COURT FAILED REVIEW BY MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published, this means it is Michigan Law today)

Case Name: Myland v. Myland ,e-Journal Number: 47425, Judge(s): K.F. Kelly, M.J. Kelly, and Borrello,No. 292868, Kalamazoo Circuit Court, LC No. 08-006024-DM


HOW DOES A COURT SET SPOUSAL SUPPORT?


The [Michigan Court of Appeals] ruled that "MCL 552.23 prohibits the use of rigid and arbitrary formulas that fail to account for the parties' unique circumstances and relative positions" [3]


THE COURT HAS TO USE THE FACTORS

[The Court reaffirmed] that a trial court awarding spousal support must consider the relevant factors,[3]

[T]he court reversed the divorce judgment and remanded the case.[3]

THE KALAMAZOO DIVORCE COURT FAILED IN ATTORNEY FEE DECISIONS


The court also held that the trial court failed to apply the proper needs based analysis in denying the plaintiff-wife's request for attorney fees based on need. [3]


JUDGES MUST CONSIDER AGE, HEALTH, ABILITY TO WORK, NEEDS AND PRIOR STANDARD OF LIVING.

Plaintiff argued on appeal, inter alia, that the trial court erred by failing to adequately consider the parties' ages, health, abilities to work and to pay alimony, their needs, and their prior standard of living. [3]


THE KALAMAZOO DIVORCE COURT MADE UP AN INCOME SHE COULD NOT EARN


She also contended that the trial court erred in imputing $7,000 in income to her and in failing to consider the costs of her COBRA health insurance. [3]


KALAMAZOO SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISION SAID SHE COULD MAKE $7,000

The court agreed. The trial court determined that the defendant-husband's income was $62,500 per year and imputed $7,000 in income to plaintiff. [3]


KALAMAZOO SPOUSAL SUPPORT BASED ON TWO FACTORS INCOME AND LENGTH OF THE MARRAIGE

It then awarded plaintiff $13,875 of spousal support per year ($1,156 per month) after only considering the length of the parties' marriage. [3]


THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAID THE KALAMAZOO SPOUSAL SUPPORT COURT USED A BLUNT TOOL

In short, we cannot sanction the use of such a blunt tool in any spousal support determination and the trial court’s use of this formula here is an error of law. [3]


Given the trial court’s use and application of its formula, it is not surprising that it failed to consider the factors relevant to an award of spousal support, aside from the length of the parties’ marriage and their relative incomes. Indeed, this formula does not adequately account for the factors that were highly relevant to this proceeding, including the parties’ ages, health, abilities to work, their needs, their previous standard of living, and whether one of them would be supporting a dependant. None of these required factors were considered by the trial court in the instant proceeding.[3]


LOWER COURT USED A FORMULA NOT BASED ON LAW


The trial court "applied a mechanistic formula," multiplying defendant's income less plaintiff's imputed income by .25 (apparently using .25 based on the number of years the parties were married - 25). [3]

Finally, given the statutory mandate of MCL 552.23, we must emphasize that there is no room for the application of any rigid and arbitrary formulas in determining theappropriate amount of spousal support like the one applied in this matter and the trial court on remand must proceed accordingly.[3]



THE KALAMAZOO SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISION DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW



The court held that this "limited, arbitrary, and formulaic approach is without any support in the law.[3]



SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISIONS MUST CONSIDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES

It totally fails to consider the unique circumstances of the parties' respective positions and fails to reach an outcome that balances the parties' needs and incomes." [3]

OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS

The trial court failed to consider several of the required factors "that were highly relevant" in this case. [3]

SPOUSE DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK


The court also held that the trial court clearly erred by imputing an income of $7,000 to plaintiff where it was clear from plaintiff's testimony and her doctor's deposition that plaintiff did not have the ability to work or to earn $7,000 per year due to her progressive MS.[3]


SPOUSE HAD SPECIAL HEALTH ARE COSTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN SPOUSAL SUPPORT DECISION


Further, the trial court erred by failing to consider plaintiff's needs, specifically her health care costs (she pays $383 a month for COBRA benefits). [3]


INEQUITABLE

The court held that the "trial court's award of spousal support, in light of plaintiff's health condition and earning ability, was deficient and clearly inequitable."[3]



KALAMAZOO DENIED ATTORENY FEES INCORRECTLY



The court also agreed with plaintiff that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her need based request for attorney fees. [3]



KALAMAZOO COURT TOLD TO GET IT RIGHT



On remand, "the trial court must apply the correct legal analysis, giving special consideration to the specific financial situations of the parties and the equities involved." The trial court was also instructed to consider whether plaintiff was entitled to appellate attorney fees.[3]



[I]t was incumbent upon the trial court to consider whether attorney fees were necessary for plaintiff to defend her suit, including whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff would have to invade the same spousal support assets she is relying on to live in order to satisfy her attorney fees, and whether, under the specific circumstances, defendant has the ability to pay or contribute to plaintiff’s fees. See Gates, 256 Mich App at 438; MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a).



HIGH COURT SAID LOWER COURT DID IT WRONG AND TO DO IT OVER

Reversed and remanded. [3]



Posted here by

Terry Bankert

http://attorneybankert.com/


[1]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/11/george-lopez-wife-divorce.html


[2]

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2010/11/23/16287361-wenn-story.html


[3]

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published, this means it is Michigan Law today)

Case Name: Myland v. Myland ,e-Journal Number: 47425, Judge(s): K.F. Kelly, M.J. Kelly, and Borrello,No. 292868, Kalamazoo Circuit Court, LC No. 08-006024-DM



(SEO)

Style for Search Engine Optimization

(trb)

Comments of Terry Bankert to include CAP headlines. http://attorneybankert.com/