JENNIFER LYNN PROFFITT V RODNEY MITCHELL PROFFITT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JENNIFER LYNN PROFFITT,
UNPUBLISHED
February 1, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 226849
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-021605-DO
RODNEY MITCHELL PROFFITT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the judgment of divorce entered after trial. We affirm.
The parties were married on September 30, 1995, and did not have children. The sole
issue for trial was the division of real property. Defendant had received a settlement of
$83,901.00 for injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred prior to the marriage.
The parties used a portion of that settlement to purchase one house, then sold that house to
acquire a second house. The parties stipulated that the house was worth $127,500, and that the
outstanding mortgage was $71,000. The court awarded the house to defendant, stating that it
was returning the property that he brought into the marriage.
This Court will review dispositive rulings in a divorce case to determine if they are fair
and equitable in light of the facts. Dragoo v Dragoo, 223 Mich App 415, 429-430; 566 NW2d
642 (1997). A dispositional ruling is discretionary and should be affirmed unless this Court is
left with a firm conviction that the distribution was inequitable. Id. When apportioning a marital
estate, the trial court’s goal is to reach an equitable division in light of all the circumstances.
Byington v Byington, 224 Mich App 103, 114; 568 NW2d 141 (1997). The court should
consider the duration of the marriage, the contribution of each party to the marital estate, each
party’s station in life, each party’s earning ability, each party’s age, health, and needs, fault or
past misconduct, and any other equitable circumstance. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 158160; 485 NW2d 893 (1992).
In Lee v Lee, 191 Mich App 73; 477 NW2d 429 (1991), this Court held that to the extent
that the proceeds from a personal injury action represented payment for pain and suffering, as
opposed to lost wages, the proceeds are separate property. Separate property is subject to
division under MCL 552.23 and MCL 552.401, but only if the remaining property was
-1-
insufficient to provide suitable support and maintenance of the other party, or if the party
contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property.
The trial court reviewed the relevant factors in awarding the house to defendant. There is
no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in making this award.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
