Court Opinion

ID: 9574017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:01:30.066586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:55.478114
License: Public Domain

Peterson, J.
(dissenting). I would affirm. It seems to me that the action of the trial judge was a well-considered solution to the problems of the parties. The sale of the orchard and the disposition of the proceeds, as ordered, was carefully tailored to fairly meet defendant’s support obligations under the peculiar circumstances of this case, and within the power of the court under MCLA 552.23(1); MSA 25.103(1), providing:
"Upon every divorce from the bond of matrimony and also upon every divorce from bed and board if the estate and effects awarded to either party shall be insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and such children of the marriage as shall *484be committed, to the care and custody of either party, the court may further award to either party such part of the real and personal estate of either party and such alimony out of the estate real and personal, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as it shall deem just and reasonable, having regard to the ability of either party and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case.”
A review of the record discloses that the court followed the statutory mandate to consider the ability of the parties, their character and situation and all of the circumstances of the case.
As against defendant’s claim that it was inequitable to require the sale of the family farm, which was his means of livelihood, the court heard testimony that (a) the farm had not been productive, resulting in a net loss of $8,600 over the previous years; (b) defendant was in default on the land contract, his deficiencies exceeding the original purchase price of $60,000; (c) defendant had other substantial obligations; (d) plaintiff was physically incapable of working; (e) defendant had failed to comply with the court’s temporary support order, accumulating an arrearage of almost $6,000 during the pendency of the action; and (f) plaintiff and the minor children had been subsisting with an aid to dependent children grant from the county department of social services. It is clear that the farm had a land value far in excess of its value as an operating farm — at least in defendant’s hands. It is equally clear that as a farmer defendant is not, or has not been, capable of meeting his obligations and supporting his family.
While my brothers find it more equitable to give plaintiff a cash award and leave the farm with defendant subject to a lien for the cash award, it seems to me that the trial judge dealt with reali*485ties rather than defendant’s vain expectations. There is no way defendant can have the farm and finance it too — he simply cannot pay a cash award without selling. When the award is not paid, plaintiff will have to resort to foreclosure proceedings, an expense she can ill afford.