KATHRYN L MYERS V CHARLES E WINKELHAUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KATHRYN L. MYERS, f/k/a KATHRYN L.
WINKELHAUS,
UNPUBLISHED
October 26, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 290542
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 00-000026-DM
CHARLES E. WINKELHAUS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and BANDSTRA, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I would affirm the trial court’s determination that plaintiff voluntarily left her
employment with Borders. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The record evidence in this case established that plaintiff left her employment with
Borders after the company’s chief executive officer transferred her from her former position as a
senior executive to a new position within the company. Plaintiff admitted that once this transfer
took place, she decided to leave the company. Plaintiff believed that the new position to which
she had been reassigned was inferior and of lower prestige, and did not feel that it was a position
that she wished to hold. Although plaintiff felt that she had been effectively forced out of the
company by way of the reassignment, the trial court found that she had voluntarily left her
employment. As a consequence, the trial court ruled that plaintiff was not entitled, under the
terms of the previous judgment, to modify the amount of spousal support that she owed to
defendant.
This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s findings of fact related to an award of
spousal support. Moore v Moore, 242 Mich App 652, 654; 619 NW2d 723 (2000). “A finding is
clearly erroneous if the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made.” Id. at 654-655. In my opinion, the trial court properly determined that plaintiff
voluntarily left her employment with Borders. It is clear from the record that, although plaintiff
was transferred from her previous position as a senior executive to a new position within the
company, she was offered the opportunity to continue working for the company. Furthermore,
the new position carried the same salary as plaintiff’s previous position at Borders. At no time
was plaintiff “terminated” within the common understanding of that term. This much is beyond
-1-
dispute. On the record before us, I simply cannot conclude that the trial court erred by finding
that plaintiff voluntarily left her employment with Borders. Id.
As further support for the trial court’s finding, I also note that plaintiff’s argument that
her employment was involuntarily terminated is tantamount to an allegation of constructive
discharge. A constructive discharge occurs only when an employer has deliberately made an
employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced into resigning, or
stated differently, when working conditions have become so difficult that a reasonable person in
the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign. Vagts v Perry Drug Stores, Inc, 204
Mich App 481, 487-488; 516 NW2d 102 (1994). The general rule is that a mere demotion or
transfer to a position of lower pay or prestige does not, in and of itself, constitute a constructive
discharge. See, e.g., Turner v Anheuser-Busch, Inc, 7 Cal 4th 1238, 1247; 876 P2d 1022; 32 Cal
Rptr 2d 223 (1994); Jett v Dallas Ind School Dist, 798 F2d 748, 755 (CA 5, 1986).
Nor can I agree with the majority’s conclusion that by agreeing to modify the spousal
support obligation via the 2003 consent order, “the parties . . . necessarily and undeniably agreed
that plaintiff suffered an involuntary job loss” within the meaning of the earlier 2001 judgment.
I have examined the terms of the 2003 consent order. Quite simply, the 2003 order does not
even address whether plaintiff’s job loss was voluntary or involuntary in nature. Moreover, the
2003 order specifically provides that “[a]ll other provisions of the [2001]
Judgment . . . pertaining to spousal support are incorporated herein and remain the order of the
court.” Thus, the provision of the 2001 judgment stating that plaintiff could “petition to decrease
or terminate the alimony obligation in the event of her . . . involuntary loss of employment”
clearly remained in effect.
In sum, the evidence establishes that plaintiff voluntarily left her employment with
Borders. I cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred by so finding. I would affirm the
trial court’s determination that plaintiff voluntarily left her employment and that she was
therefore not entitled to a modification of spousal support in this case.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2-
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.