Case Name: PINNEY v. PINNEY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-05-23
Citations: 47 Mich. App. 290
Docket Number: Docket No. 13606
Parties: PINNEY v PINNEY
Judges: Before: Fitzgerald, P. J., and McGregor and Targonski, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 47
Pages: 290–298

Head Matter:
PINNEY v PINNEY
Opinion of the Court
1. Divorce — Appeal and Error — Discretion.
The Court of Appeals hears a divorce case de novo on the record, but will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
2. Divorce — Property Settlement — Discretion.
The trial court has wide discretion in dividing the property of a marital estate.
3. Divorce — Property Settlement — Discretion.
A review of the record in a divorce case in which the appellant was awarded property valued at $90,000 while the appellee was awarded property worth $116,000 did not show any abuse of discretion by the trial court where the tried court found that the estate had been acquired through the efforts of the'appellee and that the property awarded to the appellee was heavily encumbered while the appellant’s property was free of any encumbrances.
4. Divorce — Alimony—Discretion.
Alimony payments are within the discretion of the trial court, and where a review of the background of the marriage, the distribution of marital property, and the situation of the wife after the divorce does not indicate that the alimony was inadequate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the granting of the alimony.
5. Divorce — Attorney Fees — Discretion.
Allowance of attorney fees to the wife in a suit for divorce rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and where the only question was over the distribution of property and not the divorce itself or matters of custody, and the proceedings were of short duration, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s awarding no attorney fees to the wife.
References for Points in Headnotes
4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 135.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 703, 868.
24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation §§ 929, 930, 933.
24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation §§ 601, 626.
Excessiveness of amount of money awarded as permanent alimony where divorce is or has been granted. 1 ALR3d 6.
24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 571 et seq.
Dissent by McGregor, J.
6. Divorce — Alimony—Discretion.
The trial court abused its discretion when it granted alimony to the plaintiff wife in a divorce action in an amount of merely $250 per month for a limited period of ñve years where the trial court had found that there was little likelihood that plaintiff after 32 years of marriage could obtain gainful employment at her age and in view of her lack of training in any skills, and where the division of assets was grossly unfair in that the property awarded to plaintiff was non-income producing and would result in a dimunition of her assets due to maintenance costs and property taxes, and the defendant was given property that was income producing and in excess of $26,000 over that given to plaintiff, and where the defendant had an annual income exceeding $64,000per year.
Appeal from Shiawassee, James M. Teahen, J.
Submitted Division 2 December 14, 1972, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 13606.)
Decided May 23, 1973.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Complaint by Gladys Pinney against Donald Pinney for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed
Thomas L. Gadola, for plaintiff.
Shulaw & Pajtas, for defendant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P. J., and McGregor and Targonski, JJ.
Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Targonski, J.
The parties to this action were granted a no-fault divorce. The appellant has raised three objections to the decree entered below, all of which allege an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Although this Court hears a divorce case de novo on the record it will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Snyder v Snyder, 42 Mich App 573 (1972); Schaffer v Schaffer, 37 Mich App 711 (1972).
The appellant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the property among the parties. The trial court has wide discretion in dividing the property of the marital estate. Czuhai v Czuhai, 30 Mich App 208 (1971); Schamber v Schamber, 41 Mich App 589 (1972).
A review of the record and the trial court's opinion reveals that the appellant was awarded property valued at $90,000 while the appellee was awarded property worth $116,000. The trial court, in reaching this result, found that the estate had been acquired through the efforts of the appellee and that the property awarded to the appellee was heavily encumbered while the appellant's property was free of any encumbrances. Contribution towards the acquisition of the marital estate is clearly one of the factors to be considered when an equitable division of the property is attempted. Whittaker v Whittaker, 343 Mich 267 (1955). The fact that substantial property was awarded to one party while the other party's property is heavily encumbered is a valid consideration. Schaffer v Schaffer, supra. A de novo review of the record in the instant case does not show any abuse of discretion by the trial court in . this regard.
The appellant next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting her alimony of only $250 per month for a limited number of years rather than $250 per week. Alimony payments are within the discretion of the trial court. Socha v Socha, 5 Mich App 404 (1966); Hutchins v Hutchins, 36 Mich App 675 (1971). A review of the background of the marriage, the distribution of the marital property, and the situation of the wife after the divorce does not indicate that this was inadequate. The substantial property award plus $250 per month is not an unacceptable alimony allowance under these circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The appellant further contends that the trial court erred in not awarding her attorney fees. Allbwance of attorney fees to the wife in a suit for divorce rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Ross v Ross, 24 Mich App 19 (1970); Clemens v Clemens, 39 Mich App 626 (1972). Considering that the only question was over the distribution of the property, and not the divorce itself or matters of custody, and that the proceedings were of a short duration, we find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Fitzgerald, P. J., concurred.