Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


KATHLEEN DALY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JOHN DALY, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 8, 2001

No. 217638 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 97-185257-DM

Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Griffin and Collins, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from a judgment of divorce. Defendant challenges the trial court's determinations that certain real property known as Bay Mills Point and securities that plaintiff inherited were not part of the marital estate but were plaintiff's separate property, and the court's failure to open for redistribution, pursuant to statute, the Bay Mills Point property. We affirm. "In deciding a divorce action, the circuit court must make findings of fact and dispositional rulings." Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30, 34; 497 NW2d 493 (1993). On appeal, we first review the trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 151; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after a review of the entire record, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Draggoo v Draggoo, 223 Mich App 415, 429; 566 NW2d 642 (1997). If the findings of fact are upheld, this Court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of those facts. Sparks, supra at 151-152. The property that is subject to apportionment in a divorce judgment is referred to as "marital property," and it is this property that comprises the marital estate. Byington v Byington, 224 Mich App 103, 110; 568 NW2d 141 (1997), citing 2 Curtis, Bassett & Kidder, Michigan Family Law (4th ed) (ICLE, 1993),

Download KATHLEEN DALY V JOHN DALY.pdf

Michigan Law