Case Name: TINDALL v. TINDALL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-11-12
Citations: 65 Mich. App. 405
Docket Number: Docket No. 18039
Parties: TINDALL v TINDALL
Judges: Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and Bronson and M. J. Kelly, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 65
Pages: 405–408

Head Matter:
TINDALL v TINDALL
Opinion of the Court
1. Divorce — Property Settlement — Mortgage Prepayment — Discharge of Joint Indebtedness — Sale of Marital Home.
The division of personal property in a divorce proceeding was fair and equitable under all of the circumstances, given defendant’s sizable mortgage prepayment, the sums expended by him to discharge joint indebtedness, the amounts he contributed to the marital coffers at the outset of the marriage, and the fact that the sale of the marital home at less than its appraised value was in large part plaintiffs own fault.
2. Divorce — Sale of Marital Home — Personal Property — Child Support.
A trial judge’s refusal in a divorce action to reduce a defendant’s share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home was proper when viewed in light of plaintiffs favorable treatment with respect to personal property and the amounts previously subtracted from the defendant’s award to cover child support.
3. Divorce — Additional Compensation for Attorney.
The request in a divorce action of a former plaintiff-wife for additional compensation for her attorney was properly denied where the defendant-husband was in financial plight and plaintiff was able to pursue the litigation without further attorney’s fees.
Dissent by D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
4. Divorce — Realtor’s Costs — Sale of Marital Home.
A defendant-husband should have been required to pay one-half of the realtor’s costs for the sale of the marital home which became the subject of a mortgage foreclosure instead of having plaintiff-wife pay all the realtor’s costs where a divorce judgment provides that the homestead was divided equally by requiring the wife to pay the mortgage and the husband was granted a lien equal to one-half of their equity prior to payment of the mortgage.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2, 4] 24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 933.
[3] 24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 576.
Appeal from Kalamazoo, Donald T. Anderson, J.
Submitted March 4, 1975, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 18039.)
Decided November 12, 1975.
Complaint by Helen J. Tindall against Frank A. Tindall for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals the property settlement and the denial of her motion for rehearing on the property settlement.
Affirmed.
Daudert & Barron, for plaintiff.
Birkhold, Newland & Hills (by Edgar A. Hord), for defendant.
Before: D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and Bronson and M. J. Kelly, JJ.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the property settlement portion of a divorce judgment entered between the parties and the denial of her motion for a new trial; Our findings indicate the division of personal property made in this case was eminently fair, given defendant's sizable mortgage prepayment, the sums expended by him to discharge joint indebtedness, and the amounts he contributed to the marital coffers at the outset of the marriage.
The sale of the marital home at less than its appraised value was in large part plaintiff's own fault. We find no error in the trial judge's refusal to reduce defendant's share of the proceeds, particularly in light of plaintiff's favorable treatment with respect to personal property and the amounts previously subtracted from defendant's award to cover child support.
The trial judge concluded that because of defendant's present financial plight and plaintiffs ability to pursue the litigation without further attorney's fees, her request for additional compensation for her attorney should be denied. We do not feel that the trial judge erred in that judgment.
It is truly unfortunate that both parties have experienced such serious financial problems in addition to the breakdown of their marriage. The trial judge did a commendable job in resolving a difficult problem. The property award is fair and equitable under all of the circumstances. We would not have reached a different result had we been in the position of the trial judge. Mixon v Mixon, 51 Mich App 696, 700; 216 NW2d 625 (1974).
Affirmed.
M. J. Kelly, J., concurred.