Seperate Maintenance and Property Rights in Michigan Family Courts
With the passage of time between a judgment of separate maintenance and a divorce filing, comes equitable challenges of attaining a fair property settlement. What was agreed to as fair ten years ago may no longer seem fair to one of the two divorce litigants; or to a family court judge.
The Problem of Lingering Judgements of Separate Maintenance.
In our hypothetical marriage, Lawrence Jarbou and his wife Nancy Jarbou enter into a Consent Judgment of Separate Maintenance after a 20-year marriage. The parties have a comprehensive settlement that addresses alimony and property division.
After they are legally separated, the parties attempt to repair their marriage. Seeing the marriage is irrevocably broken, husband files for divorce and completely dissolves the bonds of matrimony after two more years. Wife now claims that the parties get to completely relitigate their case while husband wants to enter a Judgment of Divorce in accord with the terms of the previously entered Judgment of Separate Maintenance.
What is a family court to do in such situations? This type of case is common, where years go by -sometimes several- between the separate maintenance judgment and the divorce filing. Case law emerging last fall has now shed light on an unresolved area within Michigan's family law jurisprudence.
Enforcement of Judgments of Separate Maintenance in subsequent divorce actions has been plagued with ambiguity. Last September, the Michigan Court of Appeals settled this grey area of law in Johnson v. Johnson.
The appellate court in Johnson held that such consent judgments are generally binding as contracts overruling prior precedent that permitted some modifications in divorce proceedings. This decision reiterates the long-held notion that Judgments of Separate maintenance are contractual in nature and it promotes finality in property division and spousal support arrangements while allowing limited exceptions. This legal principle now holds, despite the passage of appreciable time.
An action for separate maintenance is filed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a divorce. Either the plaintiff or the defendant must have resided in the state for at least 180 days and in the county of filing for at least 10 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
These residency requirements are jurisdictional and must be met on the date of filing. Michigan family law recognizes two primary mechanisms for marital dissolution; judgments of separate maintenance under MCL 552.7 and Judgments of Divorce under MCL 552.6.
Separate maintenance allows spouses to live apart while remaining legally married. Judgments of Separate Maintenance typically address issues including property division spousal support, and child related matters in certain instances. When the matter is concluded, the parties are still technically still married, but the marital property may be divided pursuant to MCL 552.19 which states:
Restoration of real and personal estate to parties.
Upon the annulment of a marriage, a divorce from the bonds of matrimony or a judgment of separate maintenance, the court may make a further judgment for restoring to either party the whole, or such parts as it shall deem just and reasonable, of the real and personal estate that shall have come to either party by reason of the marriage, or for awarding to either party the value thereof, to be paid by either party in money and the court may order support for a spouse who requires it.
When parties later seek divorce, questions in the past remained as to the effect of a Judgment of Separate maintenance on a subsequent divorce filing, particularly as it pertains to non-child related matters.
The Johnson Divorce Case from the Upper Penninsula.
The parties were married on October 15, 1982. The parties are now both advanced in age. In 2013 Husband filed a complaint for divorce, wife filed counterclaim for separate maintenance. The parties agreed to enter Consent Judgment of Separate Maintenance that addressed issues of property settlement and nonmodifiable alimony except in limited circumstances pertaining to division of husband’s UAW Pension.
The Consent Judgment of Separate Maintenance even included Staples v Staples language as it pertained to the non-modifiability of the alimony provision in the Judgment. The judgment of separate maintenance also provided for the sale of the marital home which became a bone of contention in the parties’ post judgment proceedings.
Almost ten years later, husband filed for divorce. Not suprisingly, material circumstances had changed by then. The matter eventually went to trial -which took nearly another year- and the court entered a Judgment of Divorce that substantially modified the decade-old Judgment of Separate Maintenance.
The trial court relied on Engemann v. Engemann in deciding that a family court had authority to modify substantive portions of the judgment of separate maintenance. The court’s rationale under Engemann was that a complaint for separate maintenance was a legally distinct proceeding from a complaint for divorce.
The Johnson trial court also went further to modify the “non-modifiable” spousal support contained in the judgment of separate maintenance claiming it was not bound by the prior judgment of seperate maintenance despite that judgment containing Staples language, i.e. language confirming the non-modifiability of husband's spousal support obligation.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the interpretation and enforceability of the consent judgment, treating it as a contract under established principles (citing the Vittiglio v Vittiglio and Andrusz v. Andrusz cases). The trial court vacated the judgment of divorce and remanded to the trial court with instruction to adhere to the consent judgement of separate maintenance.
Consent judgments in domestic relations are enforceable absent fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or unconscionability. A consent judgment can only be modified with the consent of the parties, at least in the absence of fraud, mistake, illegality, or unconscionability. The consent judgment at issue in this matter is a contract and must be treated as such pursuant to ordinary principles of contract interpretation.
Key Take-Aways from the Johnson Decision.
Johnson will be utilized by practitioners and jurists alike moving forward in family court property settlements. Here are some take-aways from this important decision:
Clarity on the Finality of Property Settlements: New case law -Johnson- has now clarified that property settlements as defined by statute are binding and should be enforced. This provides finality for divorce litigants and spouses.
Overruling Engemann and Clarification of Conflicted Case Law: The conflict between Andrusz and Vittiglio is now put to rest with the Johnson ruling. Certainty in the law is aided by this clarifying decision.
Reinforcing Staples: Johnson has further expanded the finality of non-modifiable alimony. It cannot be changed by merely filing a new action after alimony was settled, even when settled in a separate maintenance proceeding rather than a divorce.
Limited Flexibility of the Court’s to exercise Equitable Powers: New case law makes it clear that a prior judgment cannot be reformed except under very limited circumstances such as impossibility.
Future Impact: It is very possible that the Johnson case may lead to more Judgments of Separate Maintenance being entered now that parties can depend on the finality of those property settlements.
We can Help!
If you are facing a property settlement within the context of a separate maintenance judgment or a divorce, give our team a call. We offer a free in-person legal consultation where we can learn about the details of your matter and provide you a range of legal options.
Post #315