Full question:
Divorce case the husband, a resident of Florida, owned an inherited percentage of a Florida family partnership from which he derived a sizable annual income. In Florida, spouses are not entitled to inherited income. During earlier years the husband had borrowed substantial amounts of money from his parents and since he no way to satisfy his debt, his father and mother sued for his share of the partnership. The father had promissory notes to prove the debt and the Florida Judge ruled in their favor. The husband was later sued for divorce in the state of Michigan where his spouse had been residing. The husband was still a resident of Florida. There was a prenuptial agreement that stated the wife would receive 20% of the husband___s income. The Michigan divorce judge ruled that the husband acted in bad faith in allowing his partnership percentage to be taken and therefore overruled the decision by the Florida Judge. He treated the husband___s former income as imputed income and based the amount to be paid to the wife on the imputed income.In a divorce case can a Michigan court (judge) over rule an earlier judicial decision made by a Florida court?
- Category: Divorce
- Subcategory: Property Settlements
- Date:
- State: Florida
Answer:
It’s not accurate to say the Michigan judge overruled the Florida court's order. Instead, a divorce case can involve different legal considerations. In divorce proceedings, judges often award assets based on prior court judgments that may have depleted marital assets. In this situation, the Michigan judge likely used the Florida court's judgment to establish that the husband acted in bad faith by allowing his partnership share to be taken, which justified treating his income as imputed income for calculating support payments to the wife. Judges have discretion in divorce cases to make awards based on the specific facts and circumstances, aiming for fairness in property division and support. For more information on when income may be imputed in divorce cases, consider reviewing Michigan case law, such as Moore v. Moore, 242 Mich. App. 652 (2000). We recommend consulting a local attorney to discuss the specific details of your case.This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.