Court Opinion

ID: 9723016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:00:09.60722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:43.864751
License: Public Domain

C. W. Simon, Jr., J.
(dissenting). I would affirm.
First, I cannot say that I would have reached a different result than did the trial court with regard to alimony. Vance v Vance, 159 Mich App 381, 387; 406 NW2d 497 (1987), lv den 429 Mich 870 (1987). In addition to ordering defendant to pay plaintiff alimony in the sum of $1,200 per month for five years, the trial court ordered defendant to pay all of plaintiff’s reasonable medical, dental, hospital, optical and pharmaceutical expenses for that period and to pay training or tuition costs of not more than $2,000. While plaintiff has some health problems, the medical evidence shows that she is capable of working. Given the parties’ ages, present situation, abilities, needs, and the *396distribution of the marital property, particularly defendant’s obligation to pay large debts of the estate, I would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the alimony award it did.
Second, I would not have reached a different result than did the trial court with regard to division of the marital estate. Parrish v Parrish, 138 Mich App 546, 558; 361 NW2d 366 (1984). Evidence regarding the value of defendant’s law practice varied: while plaintiff’s expert valued the practice at $40,000, defendant’s expert opined that the practice was not salable because there was little recurring work and was therefore essentially valueless. I am persuaded that the distribution was equitable.
Third, I am not persuaded by plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by requiring her to pay twenty-five percent of the parties’ 1983 taxes because the Internal Revenue Service chose not to hold her liable for the assessment. Distribution of marital liabilities is fully within the equitable authority of the trial court in a divorce proceeding. Plaintiff did not file a separate return for the year 1983. Notwithstanding that defendant moved out of the marital home in February, 1983, the trial court was not precluded from assessing plaintiff a percentage of the 1983 joint tax liability. See Rethman v Rethman, 156 Mich App 74, 79; 401 NW2d 314 (1986), vacated in part on other grounds 429 Mich 868 (1987), elaboration of summary disposition 430 Mich 1201 (1988).
Nor am I convinced that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to order the expert witness fees in the amount of $3,500 for appraisal of defendant’s limited partnership to be paid out of the escrow account. The appraiser’s fee is exorbitant, i.e., unreasonable. MCR 3.206(A)(3). I there*397fore concur only in the result reached by the majority on this last issue.