Case ID: mich_253/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Potter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOWCROFT v. HOWCROFT.
    Divorce — Alimony—Division op Joint Property.
    Divorce decree to wife awarding her $11,992.10, and husband $6,196.04 of joint property is affirmed, on appeal by wife, where record shows that although she inherited about $4,000, the rest is the result of their joint efforts, and she has in her- own name, in addition to award by court, money and property of value of $7,659.25, making her total holdings $19,651.35, as against husband’s $6,196.04.
    Appeal from Wayne; Webster (Arthur), J.
    Submitted January 6, 1931.
    (Docket No. 25, Calendar No. 35,316.)
    Decided February 27, 1931.
    Bill for divorce by Emma M. Howcroft against Herbert Howcroft. Plaintiff appeals from portion of decree providing for division of property.
    Affirmed.
    
      Schmalzriedt, Frye, Granse & Frye, for plaintiff.
    
      Wiley, Streeter, Smith & Ford, for defendant.
   Potter, J.

Plaintiff sought divorce from defendant and a division of property. From a decree for plaintiff she appeals. No complaint is made of that part of the decree granting plaintiff divorce. Plaintiff inherited about $4,000. The rest of the property involved is the result of the efforts of the parties, who owned jointly property valued at $18,788.14. Plaintiff had on deposit in her own name $7,159.25, and owned two lake lots valued at $500, a total of $7,659.25. This property she kept. The trial court divided the property held jointly, and gave plaintiff property on Seminole avenue, Detroit, valued at $10,000, furniture and fixtures valued at $1,000, and money in the hands of the receiver $992.10, less receiver’s • expenses, $50, or $942.10, a total of $11,992.10 of the joint property, and gave defendant title to the property on Mt. Elliott avenue, Detroit, sold on land contract, on which there was yet due $6,196.04, so the total property holdings of the respective parties were, plaintiff, $19,651.35, defendant $6,196.04. Defendant has not appealed.

Decree affirmed, with costs to defendant.

( Butzel, C.- J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.