-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

CONNIE JOAN ADAMIAK, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 1, 2016 

v No. 329611 

Alpena Circuit Court 

EDWARD WILLIAM ADAMIAK, LC No. 13-05153-DM 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and SHAPIRO and GADOLA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Plaintiff appeals as of right the judgment of divorce that awarded defendant 50% of the 

equity in the marital home in an amount of $7,343.51, all of his workers’ compensation benefits, 

and certain personal property items. We affirm as to the trial court’s division of the financial 

assets of the marriage and reverse as to the items of personal property. 

 The parties’ divorce followed an incident in June of 2013 where defendant assaulted 

plaintiff. After the assault, defendant was forced to leave the home. A contested trial regarding 

the property distribution took place on April 15, 2015, and the trial court entered an order 

awarding defendant 50% of the equity in the marital home and certain personal property items he 

had requested; the order also determined that defendant’s workers’ compensation settlement was 

separate property. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration that addressed each of these three 

items. The trial court denied this motion, and the judgment of divorce was entered soon after. 

Plaintiff now appeals with respect to these three items. 

 “The goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceeding is to reach an equitable 

distribution of property in light of all the circumstances.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 

716-717; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). The marital estate does not need to be divided “into 

mathematically equal portions.” Id. The trial court has “broad discretion in fashioning its 

rulings.” Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 158-159; 485 NW2d 893 (1992). We will affirm a

trial court’s dispositional ruling unless we are “left with the firm conviction that the division was 

inequitable.” Id. at 152. 

 The dispute concerning the home equity arose out of plaintiff’s testimony that after 

defendant moved out of the house in June of 2013, she alone paid the monthly mortgage without 

any assistance from defendant. Plaintiff provided a billing statement showing that at the time of 

trial the principal balance on the mortgage was $61,312.97. While this documentation only 
-2- 

provided the principal balance on the mortgage as of the time of trial, it contained enough 

information to determine what the principal balance would have been as of the end of 2013. In 

her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by determining the 

relevant equity to be divided based upon the date of the trial rather than the date on which 

defendant left the home and made no separate payments. The change in equity was 

approximately $4,100 as evidenced by a July 6, 2013 mortgage statement attached to the motion 

for reconsideration. 

 The dispute concerning the workers’ compensation benefits concerns a settlement of 

$20,569.02 received by defendant on February 12, 2014 that was to resolve his claim for past 

and future medical costs and wage loss arising out of a workplace injury. At trial, defendant 

asked that that settlement money be considered separate, non-marital property, and plaintiff did 

not object. However, in her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff argued that some portion of the 

settlement be included in her property award. 

 Because plaintiff first raised the issue of the workers’ compensation settlement in her 

motion for reconsideration, it is not preserved. Vushaj v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 284 

Mich App 513, 519; 773 NW2d 758 (2009) (determining that “[w]here an issue is first presented 

in a motion for reconsideration, it is not properly preserved”). As the issue is not properly 

preserved, we decline to review it. See Heydonv MediaOne of Southeast Michigan Inc, 275 

Mich App 267, 278; 739 NW2d 373 (2007). 

 The decision to value the equity in the marital home as of the date of trial as opposed to 

the date that defendant left the marital home was a dispositional decision. See Woodington v 

Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 355; 792 NW2d 63 (2010) (stating that “[t]he determination of the 

proper time for valuation of an asset is in the trial court’s discretion”). The court’s determination 

as to the time of valuation was not an abuse of discretion. Moreover, given the various financial 

assets at issue in the overall division, even if we were to accept plaintiff’s argument as to time of 

valuation, we would not be left with a firm conviction that the ultimate division of financial 

assets was inequitable. See Sparks, 440 Mich at 152. 

 Concerning the dispute over the personal property, defendant prepared a list of the 

personal property items in the marital home that he wanted to receive in the property division 

prior to trial. On the list were four items as to which plaintiff objected, i.e., “[t]he tall dresser, 

standing mirror, nightstand, [and] master bedroom queen board.” Plaintiff testified that these 

items were her pre-marital property and should not be included in the marital property division. 

Defendant testified that he did not think plaintiff acquired this property before the marriage, but 

he stated on the record that “if she had a receipt that said I bought it at a certain date, I would 

acquiesce to that. But as of right now, I say that I think we were married by the time she bought 

that.” In dividing the personal property, the trial court awarded defendant all the items on his 

list, including the items plaintiff had argued were separate property at the trial. 

 With her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff provided receipts for the relevant items 

which showed that they were acquired prior to the parties’ marriage and requested that the court 

modify its order as to these items. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 

stating that it had accepted defendant’s testimony at the time of trial and that plaintiff could have 

located and provided the receipts prior to trial. Given the unique circumstances of this case, we 

reverse. The issue was raised at trial and though the receipts were not produced at that time, 
-3- 

defendant conceded in open court that if the receipts could be produced he would not dispute that 

the items belonged to plaintiff as pre-marital property. In light of that record admission and the 

fact that the receipts were produced prior to the judgment becoming final, we conclude that it 

was an abuse of discretion not to modify the judgment in this limited respect. 

 We reverse the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding the 

tall dresser, standing mirror, nightstand, and master bedroom queen board and direct that the 

judgment be revised accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

No costs awarded as neither party has prevailed in full. 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Michael F. Gadola