Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


SUSANNE K. LEFEVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ALLEN P. LEFEVE, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 12, 2006

No. 257116 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 02-001564-DM

Before: Zahra, P.J., and Murphy and Neff, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from a judgment of divorce. We affirm. Defendant first claims that the court failed to enforce the parties' stipulation concerning marital debt. We disagree. "In reviewing a dispositional ruling in a divorce case, we first review the trial court's findings of fact for clear error and then decide 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), citing Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30, 34; 497 NW2d 493 (1993); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 151-152; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Beason v Beason, 435 Mich 791, 805; 460 NW2d 207 (1990). During the hearing, plaintiff testified on cross-examination that, "[i]f it's something we did together, I guess we can pay [credit cards] off first but if he acquired them after, I don't-- [defense counsel interjected]." Also, in response to defense counsel's question whether, "any credit card debt that you had, any credit card debt that he had, or anything that was in both of your names prior to August 2nd, would be divided equally and you would each be responsible for 50%," plaintiff stated, "yes." Defense counsel later elicited defendant's "agreement with [his] wife that the credit card balances as of the beginning of August should be a joint liability and paid equally by the two of you." Defendant also stated that he would be responsible for "anything . . . incurred since August 1st." The trial court, in a written opinion, stated: Exhibit 15 lists the debts which the Defendant claims are joint debts. The Plaintiff denied having used the accounts and Defendant presented no proofs indicating what these debts were for, when they were incurred who made -1-


payments on them or how the balances listed on exhibit 15 were arrived at. Therefore, Court is not considering these as marital debts in the division of the property. We cannot conclude the above testimony constitutes a stipulation. A stipulation must be "definite and certain in order to afford a proper basis for judicial decision, and it is essential that [it] be assented to by the parties or those representing them." Whitley v Chrysler Corp, 373 Mich 469, 474; 130 NW2d 26 (1964), quoting 83 CJS, Stipulations,

Download SUSANNE K LEFEVE V ALLEN P LEFEVE.pdf

Michigan Law