MARILYN MAE DESHANO V TIMOTHY DESHANO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARILYN MAE DESHANO,
UNPUBLISHED
February 22, 2002
Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellee,
v
No. 227197
Bay Circuit Court
LC No. 98-004195-DO
TIMOTHY DESHANO,
Defendant-Counter-PlaintiffAppellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Doctoroff and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right the judgment of divorce entered after a bench trial. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The parties were married in January 1972, and separated in February 1988. Plaintiff filed
for divorce on December 1, 1998. In awarding alimony, the trial court declined to use the
separation date to determine the length of the marriage, and found that the parties were married
for twenty-six years. Applying the factors identified in Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159-160;
485 NW2d 893 (1992), the court determined that equity supported an alimony award of $400 per
week until plaintiff reached age sixty-two.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that the marriage lasted
twenty-six years in computing the alimony award. An award of alimony is authorized by MCL
552.23(1), and is granted at the discretion of the trial court. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 150152; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). Factors to be considered in dividing the marital estate are 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, needs, fault or past misconduct, and
any other equitable circumstance. Id., 158-160. The same principles apply in determining
whether to award alimony. Hanaway v Hanaway, 208 Mich App 278, 295; 527 NW2d 792
(1995).
The goal of the court when apportioning a marital estate is to reach an equitable division
in light of all the circumstances. Byington v Byington, 224 Mich App 103, 114; 568 NW2d 141
(1997). For the purposes of dividing property, marital assets are typically valued at the time of
trial or at the time judgment is entered, although the court may, in its discretion, use a different
-1-
date. Id., 114, n 4. There is no support for the proposition that events short of death or the entry
of the judgment of divorce may abbreviate the existence of the marital estate. Id., 113.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the length of the marriage based
on the time of filing for divorce, rather than the time of separation. The alimony award was not
inequitable.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
