On January 29, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion the case of Criag vs. Marcy Maynard. The Maynard story goes like this. The parties married in 2006 when Craig was 64 and March was 60. When the parties married, Marcy moved into Craigs home he purchased before marriage. Marcy worked three part time jobs during the marriage earning around $1,900 per month and Craig did not work. Craig received $5,000 a month is disability. During the divorce, Marcy had to obtain a PPO against Craig arising from his inappropriate behavior. The trial court examined spousal support and fault, awarding Marcy spousal support in part because of Craig’s fault for the breakdown of the marriage.
Craig appealed the trial court’s determination that he was at fault for the is fault was a basis for Marcy receiving spousal support and awarded Marcy $400.00 per month is spousal support.
The trial court determined Craig was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage because of his:
“. . . quick temper and his actions that led Marcy to seek and obtain a PPO against him. . . .Craig regularly fought with her about how frequently she babysay her grandchildren . . . Craig frequently used alcohol and marijuana . . . Craig [was] ‘scary’ when he became intoxicated. . .”
The Michigan Court of Appeals determined that the trial court properly examined all of the spousal support factors in awarding Marcy alimony.
The spousal support factors are as follows:
(1) the past relations and conduct of the parties;
(2) the length of the marriage;
(3) the abilities of the parties to work;
(4) the source and the amount of property awarded to the parties;
(5) the parties’ ages;
(6) the abilities of the parties to pay support;
(7) the present situation of the parties;
(8) the needs of the parties;
(9) the parties’ health;
(10) the parties’ prior standard of living and whether either is responsible for the support of others;
(11) the contributions of the parties to the joint estate;
(12) a party’s fault in causing the divorce;
(13) the effect of cohabitation on a party’s financial status; and (
14) general principles of equity. See: Woodington v Shokoohi
The determination of Craig’s fault for the breakdown of the marraige was made by the trial court after determining that Marcy’s testimony was more credible. The Court of Appeals gave special consideration to the notion that the trial court determined Craig was less credible than Marcy. In Johnson v Johnson), the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court is better equipped to judge credibility in part because witnesses are not called to testify on appeal.
Simply put, a party’s fault in causing the divorce is a relevant factor in awarding spousal support and in the case of Maynard vs. Maynard, the award of spousal support and fault were appropriate.
By: Daniel Findling – (c) 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oKM_UOUiks
Phone:+1 (248) 399-3300
After hours emergency?+1 (707) 968-7347
Email:Daniel@Findlinglaw.com
I have been exclusively practicing divorce and family law in Michigan for over two decades. The attorneys at Findling Law all share the core value of practicing law to help people navigate change in their lives, without compromising principles. We are compassionate, creative and always prepared. We specialize in high socio-economic, high-profile and high-conflict cases, while also working with clients of all backgrounds. We recognize that the most important aspect of the practice of law is the application of the law to your specific circumstances.That is why we provide more free information on divorce and family law than any other Michigan law firm. We want to help you manage your situation. Allow our exceptional legal team to help you navigate the change in your life, without compromising principles.