Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MARY CIPRIANO, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ Appellant, v SALVATORE CIPRIANO, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED July 5, 1996

No. 171878 LC No. 91-004641-DO

MARY CIPRIANO, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v SALVATORE CIPRIANO, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 174026 LC No. 91-004641 DO

Before: White, P.J., and Smolenski and R.R. Lamb,* JJ. PER CURIAM. In docket numbers 171878 and 174026, plaintiff appeals as of right a judgment of divorce and supplemental judgment of divorce regarding the division of property, respectively. In docket number 174026, defendant cross-appeals as of right the supplemental judgment. We affirm in part, vacate in

* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

part, and remand.

2

In reviewing a dispositional ruling in a divorce case, this Court first reviews the trial court's findings of fact for clear error and then decides whether the dispositional ruling was fair and equitable in light of the facts. Hanaway v Hanaway, 208 Mich App 278, 292; 527 Nw2d 792 (1995). We will affirm a dispositional ruling unless we are left with the firm conviction that the ruling was inequitable. Id. The parties' first arguments on appeal concern the trial court's decisions regarding the extent to which defendant's separate property would be included in the marital estate. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred when it declined to include defendant's "gifted/inherited" ownership interest in Peter Cipriano Enterprises and 424 shares of Cross and Peters Company stock in the marital estate pursuant to either MCL 552.23(1); MSA 25.103(1) or MCL 552.401; MSA 25.136. A party's separate property should be distributed as part of a marital estate only if the remaining property is insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of the other party, MCL 552.23(1); MSA 25.103(1), or if the other contributed to the acquisition, improvement or accumulation of the property, MCL 552.401; MSA 25.136. Lee v Lee, 191 Mich App 73, 78-79; 477 NW2d 429 (1991). Concerning the court's determination that the property in the marital estate excluding defendant's aforementioned interests was "more than sufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of plaintiff," we find neither clear error nor are we left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. Hanaway, supra. However, we vacate the court's determination that defendant's interest in Peter Cipriano Enterprises and 424 shares of Cross and Peters Company stock would not be included in the marital estate because plaintiff had not contributed to its acquisition, improvement or accumulation and remand for reconsideration of this issue in light of Hanaway, supra at 292-295. See also, generally, McDougal v McDougal, 451 Mich 80, 82; 545 NW2d 357 (1996). On remand, the court's findings shall include findings concerning the valuation of defendant's interests. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it determined that plaintiff contributed to the acquisition or improvement of the "Harper" property and included it in the marital estate pursuant to

Download MARY CIPRIANO V SALVATORE CIPRIANO.pdf

Michigan Law