SHIRLEY KORTH V ALLEN KORTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SHIRLEY KORTH,
FOR PUBLICATION
April 15, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 238609
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-212959-DO
v
ALLEN KORTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
May 23, 2003
Before: Saad, P.J., and Zahra and Schuette, JJ.
SCHUETTE, J. (dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent in part. I am reluctant to disturb the decision of the trial court with
respect to spousal support and I would uphold the trial court's determination of this issue.
The case Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141; 485 NW2d 893 (1992), established the
framework for appellate review of property settlements and spousal support in a divorce matter.
In Sparks, the Michigan Supreme Court held:
The appellate court must first review the trial court's findings of fact under
the clearly erroneous standard. If the findings of fact are upheld, the appellate
court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of
those facts. But because we recognize that the dispositional ruling is an exercise
of discretion and that appellate courts are often reluctant to reverse such rulings,
we hold that the ruling should be affirmed unless the appellate court is left with
the firm conviction that the division was inequitable. [Id. at 151-152 (citations
omitted).]
See also Ianitelli v Ianitelli, 199 Mich App 641, 644; 502 NW2d 691 (1993); Draggoo v
Draggoo, 223 Mich App 415, 429; 566 NW2d 642 (1997).
In this case, a review of the record indicates that the trial court's findings of fact are not clearly
erroneous.
In addition, the Sparks-Ianitelli framework requires affirmance unless the appellate court
is left with the firm conviction that the division is inequitable. Here, the trial court reviewed and
balanced the facts and circumstances surrounding a twenty-three year relationship and a ten-year
marriage in crafting a division of marital property and in concluding that there was a need for a
-1-
fifteen-year spousal support decree. The trial court applied the various factors outlined in Sparks
in considering both the spousal support and the division of marital property. Sparks, supra at
159-160.
Often, although not universally, the design of a division of marital property and the award
of spousal support is the result of an intricate and delicate equation that should not be altered
without a firm conviction that it was inequitable. I am of the opinion that the trial court's
determination of spousal support is not inequitable under the facts and circumstances of this
case. I would affirm the trial court's decision with regard to spousal support.
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
