Opinion

Brown v. Brown

  • 297 Mich. 24
  • 296 N.W. 867
  • 1941 Mich. LEXIS 601
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 11, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Bushnell
On the bench
Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, Chandler, North, McAllister, Wiest, Butzel
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 62.4%

The opinion

Bushnell, J.

The respective parties agree that the question involved in this appeal is:

*25

“Can a court, in decreeing' alimony, after giving to a wife all the property belonging to the husband, still compel him to finish paying a mortgage in a substantial amount?”

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce in which the court awarded the custody of a 13-year-old daughter to the mother, ordered the father to pay $12 a week for the support of the child, and gave defendant real property estimated to be worth about $3,000, to which the parties held title jointly. This property was incumbered by a mortgage on which there was an unpaid balance of $1,700. The court required the husband to pay $18 per month to the wife as permanent alimony until this mortgage debt should be fully paid and satisfied. This provision for permanent alimony was in lieu of dower.

Appellant does not question any of the provisions of the decree except that which requires him to liquidate the mortgage indebtedness.

The parties had lived together for 20 years, and the only property accumulated in this period, according to the undisputed testimony, was the equity in their home and some furniture. The husband is an able-bodied man who has worked for the same employer for over 19 years. The wife is in poor health, unable to do manual work, and has been under a doctor’s care for seven years. Although the decree provides for application of the permanent alimony to the mortgage debt, this is in effect a limitation upon the total amount plaintiff is required to pay. There is no rigid rule of division of property and the security of a living for the wife should be a major consideration.

Mayer

v.

Mayer,

266 Mich. 241 . The division must be equitable.

Robinson

v.

Robinson,

275 Mich. 420 .

The court reached an equitable result in this case, did not indulge in an abuse of discretion, and the de

*26

cree should not be disturbed. It is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Sharpe, C. J., and Boyles, Chandler, North, McAllister, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.