Case Name: VOUKATIDIS v. VOUKATIDIS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1992-08-03
Citations: 195 Mich. App. 338
Docket Number: Docket No. 129640
Parties: VOUKATIDIS v VOUKATIDIS
Judges: Before: Jansen, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Griffin, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 195
Pages: 338–342

Head Matter:
VOUKATIDIS v VOUKATIDIS
Docket No. 129640.
Submitted April 21, 1992, at Detroit.
Decided August 3, 1992, at 10:05 a.m.
George H. Voukatidis and Rita R. Voukatidis were divorced by order of the Wayne Circuit Court, Sharon Tevis Finch, J. He appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. Given the substantial disparity in the parties’ incomes, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant $1,500 in attorney fees.
2. The property division ordered by the trial court was proper.
3. The trial court did not err in awarding the defendant temporary alimony.
Affirmed.
Michael J. Kelly, J., dissenting in part, stated that the trial court clearly erred in basing its determination of the defendant’s ability to carry on or defend the action on a comparison of the parties’ incomes. It is the defendant’s financial status alone that must be examined to determine her ability to pay.
Divorce — Attorney Fees — Disparity in Parties’ Incomes.
Attorney fees may be awarded in a divorce action on the basis of a substantial disparity in the parties’ incomes.
Kevin A. McNulty, for the plaintiff.
Margaret Barton, for the defendant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Griffin, JJ.
References
Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 604.
Amount of attorneys’ fees in matters involving domestic relations. 59 ALR3d 152.

Opinion:
Griffin, J.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a May 14, 1990, judgment of divorce entered by the Wayne Circuit Court. We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding defendant $1,500 in attorney fees. We disagree. Defendant requested $3,500 in fees and was awarded $1,500. Given the substantial disparity in the parties' incomes, we find no abuse of discretion. Vollmer v Vollmer, 187 Mich App 688, 690; 468 NW2d 236 (1990).
Plaintiff next contends that the trial court made numerous errors that skewed what otherwise would have been a precise fifty-fifty split of the marital estate. Having reviewed the record, we find no merit with regard to any of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's primary contention, that the trial court somehow twice ordered him to pay defendant one-half of the forty-four shares of Ford Motor Company stock, simply has no basis in fact. The record unequivocally reflects that plaintiff held an additional forty-four shares of stock that were not accounted for initially. Similarly, plaintiff's claim that the trial court failed to consider the value of a television set he bought for defendant is also without merit. In its findings, the trial court allowed plaintiff to keep the amount of his savings that accrued following the parties' separation on the basis that plaintiff bought certain items and made various "reasonable expenditures" during this time. Our review also indicates that the court dealt with the value of the parties' automobiles in an equitable fashion. Finally, given the disparate economic positions of the parties, we find nothing inequitable about requiring plaintiff to maintain defendant's health insurance on a temporary basis. Plaintiff has in no way convinced us that we would have reached a different result had we occupied the position of the trial court. Burkey v Burkey (On Rehearing), 189 Mich App 72, 78; 471 NW2d 631 (1991).
Finally, plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding defendant temporary alimony. We disagree. The trial court awarded defendant $200 a week for one year. In so doing, the court noted that the parties had endured many years of marriage during which they lived at the standard provided by their combined incomes. Thus, the court found the alimony necessary to equalize the parties' financial positions and to allow defendant to "get on her feet financially." These considerations were proper, and we find no error. Id.; Thames v Thames, 191 Mich App 299, 307-308; 477 NW2d 496 (1991).
Affirmed.
Jansen, P.J., concurred.