RANDALL LEE FOWLER V BETTY JEAN FOWLER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RANDALL LEE FOWLER, UNPUBLISHED February 3, 1998 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 196679 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 95-001636 DO BETTY JEAN FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant. Before: MacKenzie, P.J., and Hood and Hoekstra, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In this appeal as of right, defendant challenges the division of the marital assets contained in a judgment of divorce entered on July 10, 1996. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm. Defendant asks this Court to remand this action and require the trial court to modify the divorce judgment to award her $12,500, reflecting the value of a ring plaintiff purchased and gave to defendant. A review of the divorce judgment reveals that the trial court awarded the ring to defendant. To the extent that defendant does not have the ring and plaintiff does, defendant’s relief lies in an action to enforce the judgment brought before the trial court, which has the basic responsibility for enforcement of its own decree and considerable discretion in the means to be employed. MCL 552.12; MSA 25.92; Butler v Butler, 356 Mich 607, 618; 97 NW2d 67 (1959). Defendant further asks this Court to order the trial court to modify the divorce judgment to include a monetary award of $9,500 to defendant, which defendant claims would reimburse her for the moneys she spent on improvements made to plaintiff’s home using the funds she realized on the sale of her residence. In light of the conflicting testimony with regard to whether defendant spent any of her own funds to improve plaintiff’s home, the trial court did not make an unfair or inequitable dispositional ruling or abuse its discretion when it rejected defendant’s request for the $9,500 reimbursement. Sands v Sands, 442 Mich 30, 34; 497 NW2d 493 (1993); Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 151; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). -1­ Defendant having raised no meritorious claim or issue of jurisprudential significance, an award of attorney fees is unwarranted. Wiley v Wiley, 214 Mich App 614, 616; 543 NW2d 64 (1995). Affirmed. /s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra -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.