LORNA M ZAVITZ V JAMES A ZAVITZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LORNA M. ZAVITZ now known as LORNA
MYERS,
UNPUBLISHED
February 14, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 184696
Missaukee Circuit Court
LC No. 92-2825-DM
JAMES A. ZAVITZ
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Murphy and M. F. Sapala*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals a post judgment order finding him in contempt for failure to pay alimony in
gross payments pursuant to the judgment of divorce and as ordered by the court. On appeal defendant
claims the court exceeded its authority when it found defendant in contempt for failure to pay alimony in
gross payments.
Defendant claims the alimony in gross provisions were part of the property settlement and not
intended to be spousal support and property settlements cannot be enforced by the contempt powers of
the court.
The court found and ruled in part:
The Opinion of this Court and the subsequent Judgment of Divorce clearly
show that the award of alimony in gross was not part of the property settlement. After
equally dividing the marital assets of the parties, the Court under a heading entitled
“Spousal Support” awarded plaintiff $15,000.00 as alimony in gross. The Court
clearly stated in its Opinion that “. . . the relevant factors of the length of marriage, age
of the plaintiff, income of the plaintiff, and education and training of the plaintiff . . .”
called “. . . for an alimony award of approximately 3 to 10 years duration.” The Court
went on to indicate that defendant’s apparent ability to pay spousal support was
* Recorder's Court judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
factored into this award. The spousal support award was clearly and unequivocally
intended to provide support and maintenance for the
-2
plaintiff for a period of five years. It was just as clearly and unequivocally not intended
to be part of the property settlement. The Court did award plaintiff the sum of
$16,575.00 in cash as part of the property settlement to insure an equal division of the
marital assets. If the $15,000.00 was meant to be part of this cash settlement, it would
have been included in this provision.
After careful review of the record we hold the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.
The trial court’s opinion, filed October 7, 1993, clearly indicated that the alimony in gross award was
intended for spousal support and not part of the property settlement. Spousal support is enforceable by
contempt proceedings. Kyte v Kyte, 325 Mich 149; 37 NW2d 784 (1949).
Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael F. Sapala
-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.
