ALICE J CUNNINGHAM V DEAN W CUNNINGHAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ALICE J. CUNNINGHAM,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 282045
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001135-DO
DEAN W. CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Meter and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this domestic relations action, defendant appeals as of right from the parties’ judgment
of divorce. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court improperly listed all farm equipment as a
marital asset in spite of the testimony of both parties that some of the equipment had been
purchased by defendant prior to their marriage. In its written opinion, the court concluded that
all the farm equipment was a marital asset and valued it at $23,395. It assigned the farm
equipment to defendant and ordered him to pay plaintiff the value of her one-half share
($11,697.50) in the equipment. Defendant acknowledges that a spouse’s separate assets can be
redistributed under certain statutorily created exceptions. But, he argues, neither of the
exceptions provided for in MCL 552.23 and 552.401 are applicable to the present case.
An analysis of the applicability of these exclusions is unnecessary. The trial court did not
determine that the property was separate but should be invaded. The trial court determined that
the farm equipment was marital property. Thus, the issue is whether the trial court’s conclusion
that the farm equipment was marital property was erroneous.
Where a separate asset is commingled with marital property, or otherwise contributed to
the marital household, thereby causing the asset to lose “any characteristic of being separate
property,” the asset is no longer separate, and it is then considered marital property subject to
division. Pickering v Pickering, 268 Mich App 1, 12-13; 706 NW2d 835 (2005). Although
defendant owned certain farm equipment prior to the marriage, the equipment was used
throughout most of the marriage to generate income for the parties. Because there was evidence
adduced that the farm equipment brought into the marriage was both commingled with marital
property and contributed to the marital household, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly
-1-
erred in finding that all of the farm equipment was a marital asset to be divided. McNamara v
Horner, 249 Mich App 177, 182-183; 642 NW2d 385 (2002).
Defendant next argues that he was entitled to a credit applied to his spousal support
obligation for payments he made for plaintiff’s dental work. However, defendant never
requested this credit below. An award of alimony is discretionary, the objective is to balance the
income and needs of the parties without impoverishing either party, and alimony is calculated
based on the circumstances of each case. Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619, 631; 671 NW2d 64
(2003). Factors to consider include the parties’ ages, the parties’ health, the ability to work, the
ability to pay, and general principles of equity. Id. At trial, plaintiff testified that the dental
work was a gift that defendant offered to pay for regardless of the pending divorce because she
needed to have the work performed. Defendant did not counter plaintiff’s testimony that the
dental work was a gift. Rather, defendant testified that he continued to pay for the dental work.
In closing argument, defendant did not request a credit for the dental work. Additionally,
defendant failed to cite any case law supporting his position that his voluntary payment toward
plaintiff’s dental expenses should be credited against spousal support. Thus, defendant has
abandoned the issue. Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 14; 672 NW2d
351 (2003). “A party may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover
and rationalize the basis for the claim.” Nat’l Waterworks, Inc v Int’l Fidelity & Surety, Ltd, 275
Mich App 256, 265; 739 NW2d 121 (2007).
Defendant has also abandoned his argument that the court erred in not classifying a debt
owed to Peters Brothers Farms as a marital debt. In any event, this issue is without merit. An
essential counterpart to dividing marital property is the allocation of marital debt. Generally, the
trial court is best positioned to determine whether a debt is a marital debt or properly allocated to
one individual. See Lesko v Lesko, 184 Mich App 395, 401; 457 NW2d 695 (1990). Defendant
argues that his indebtedness to Peters Brothers Farms should have been included as a marital
debt because it was a farming debt that touches and concerns the marital property. Plaintiff
testified that she did not have anything to do with the debt and should not be held responsible for
it.
We cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred by failing to include the Peter
Brothers Farms invoice as marital debt. McNamara, supra. The invoice did not establish the
precise nature of the debt, and defendant’s relatives operated the business. Plaintiff testified that
she was not entitled to provide opinions regarding this farming debt, and she did not sign the
invoice. She further testified that the farming business was not profitable for years and caused
the couple to sell acres of their land. In light of this evidence, the trial court’s decision to
characterize this invoice as defendant’s individual debt was not clearly erroneous. Id.
Lastly, defendant submits that he should receive credit for monies expended to maintain
the marital home while the divorce action was pending. However, review of the closing
argument and the motion for reconsideration reveals that defendant did not request such a credit,
and the trial court did not sua sponte impose a credit. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for
appellate review. In any event, defendant fails to establish error in the property distribution. The
goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceeding is to reach an equitable distribution of
property in light of all the circumstances. Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 716-717; 747
NW2d 336 (2008). The division does not have to be numerically equal, but any significant
departure from congruence must be clearly explained. Id. at 717. Looking to all the
-2-
circumstances of this case, we are not left with a firm conviction that the property division was
rendered inequitable by the court failing to advance the credit sought. Pickering, supra at 7. On
this record, the trial court did not clearly err in its findings and in light of those facts the
distribution was fair and just.1
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
Defendant’s reliance on plaintiff’s withdrawal of funds is also without merit. The amount of
the withdrawal in light of all of the equities and circumstances of the case did not create a
departure from congruence.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.