-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Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 1, 2016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: B OONSTRA , P.J., and S HAPIRO and G ADOLA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Plaintiff appeals as of right t he judgment of divorce that awa rded defendant 50% of the equity in the marital home in an amount of $7,343.51, all of hi s 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 rever se as to the items of personal property.

The parties’ divorce followed an incident in June of 2013 wher e defendant assaulted plaintiff. After the assault, defendant was forced to leave th e 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 th e marital home and ce rtain personal property items he had requested; the order also det ermined that defendant’s worke rs’ compensation settlement was separate property. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideratio n 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 res pect to these three items.

“The goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceedi ng is to reach an equitable distribution of property in li ght 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 pai d the monthly mortgage without any assistance from defendant. Plaintiff provided a billing st atement showing that at the time of trial the principal balance on the mortgage was $61,312.97. Wh ile this documentation only-2- provided the principal balance on the mortgage as of the time o f trial, it contained enough information to determine what th e 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 cha nge in equity was approximately $4,100 as evidenced by a July 6, 2013 mortgage st atement attached to the motion for reconsideration.

The dispute concerning the worke rs’ compensation benefits conc erns 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 workpla ce injury. At trial, defendant asked that that settlement money be considered separate, non-ma rital property, and plaintiff did not object. However, in her motion for reconsideration, plaint iff argued that some portion of the settlement be include d in her property award.

Because plaintiff first raised the issue of the workers’ compe nsation 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]he re 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 disposition al decision. See Woodington v Shokoohi , 288 Mich App 352, 355; 792 NW2d 63 (2010) (stating that “[t]h e determination of the proper time for valuation of an a sset is in the trial court’s d iscretion”). The court’s determination as to the time of valuation was not an abuse of discretion. Mo reover, given the various financial assets at issue in the overall division, even if we were to acc ept plaintiff’s argument as to time of valuation, we would not be left w ith 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 p repared a list of the personal property items in the marital home that he wanted to r eceive in the property division prior to trial. On the list were four items as to which plaint iff 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 th is 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 rig ht now, I say that I think we were married by the time she bought that.” In dividing the personal property, the trial court awar ded defendant all the items on his list, including the items plain tiff had argued were separate pr operty at the trial.

With her motion for reconsider ation, plaintiff provided receip ts for the relevant items which showed that they were acquired prior to the parties’ marr iage and requested that the court modify its order as to these items. The trial court denied pla intiff’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 u nique circumstances of this case, we reverse. The issue was raised a t 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 no t 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 beco ming final, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion not to m odify the judgment in this l imited respect.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding the tall dresser, standing mirror, n ightstand, and master bedroom q ueen board and direct that the judgment be revised accordingly. In all other respects, we aff irm. 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