Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2013-814443-DO
Before: Redford, P.J., and Markey and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
PER
CURIAM.
Plaintiff
appeals by leave granted the July 20, 2017 order that
terminated defendant's obligation to provide spousal
support under the parties' divorce settlement and consent
judgment of divorce. We reverse.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
and defendant married in 1985. On September 5, 2014, after 29
years of marriage, they entered into a divorce settlement
agreement, and on September 8, 2014, they signed a consent
judgment of divorce, which merged and incorporated the terms
of their settlement. At the time of their divorce, plaintiff
and defendant had two grown children and a sizeable estate.
The parties' settlement essentially split their marital
assets.
The
parties' consent judgment of divorce provided the
following regarding alimony/spousal support:
A. No Spousal Support/Section 71 payments to Defendant by
Plaintiff are awarded and same shall be forever waived and
barred. This is non-modifiable.
B. Commencing September 1, 2014 Defendant shall pay to
Plaintiff each month, through a direct deposit account that
Wife will establish, alimony/spousal support in the
amount of $10, 000, for a period of 10 years (120 months),
until Wife's death, or until Wife remarries, which ever
event was to occur first. All such payments of
alimony/spousal support shall be deductible to Husband for
income tax purposes pursuant to IRC §215 and includable
by Wife in her gross income for tax purposes pursuant to ICR
§71, and neither party shall file any income tax return
inconsistent therewith. The foregoing alimony/spousal support
payments to Wife by Husband shall not be modifiable as to
amount or duration. [Emphasis added.][1]
Approximately
one year after her divorce, during September 2015, plaintiff
met and dated Matthew Bassett. Not long after, plaintiff
considered marrying Basset but she decided against it and
instead, on December 24, 2015, they participated in a
"commitment ceremony" performed at plaintiff's
church. Plaintiff considered herself a "spiritual
person," did not want to "live in sin," and
"wanted to be right with God," and therefore,
decided to have a "private prayer ceremony" without
guests or witnesses. Plaintiff discussed with her close
friend the possibility of losing spousal support and told her
that she had done her "homework," and was only
having a spiritual ceremony with Bassett because it was not
considered legal without a marriage license; and therefore,
she could continue to receive spousal support from defendant.
Plaintiff
and defendant's mutual friend, Kimberly Kleinfelter,
testified that plaintiff told her that she couldn't be
married legally under the terms of the divorce but she
desired the blessing of God on her union with Bassett. She
told Kleinfelter that she intended not to have a marriage
under state law so that she could keep her alimony which was
important to her.
The
lead pastor of the First Congregational Church of Traverse
City, Chad Oyer, met plaintiff because she attended the
church and had been a "very active" member of his
congregation. Oyer testified that plaintiff desired to live
in a recognized Christian union where "they put God at
the center," so she asked Oyer for "a ceremony of
Christian commitment for one another." Oyer testified
that plaintiff told him that "a legal civil marriage
would compromise" her rights and her alimony would be
terminated. Oyer obliged her request because he believed that
he could perform a "Christian marriage" without it
resulting in a legal marriage. Oyer performed "a
ceremony of Christian marriage, and all traditional vows were
exchanged within the context that this was a Christian
marriage, not a legal or civil marriage." Plaintiff and
Bassett exchanged the "traditional Christian vows,"
represented each other as "husband and wife," and
exchanged rings. Oyer performed the ceremony without
witnesses present or the signing of a marriage license.
Defendant
learned from one of his friends of the private ceremony
between plaintiff and Bassett, held at plaintiff's church
in Traverse City. Defendant then contacted plaintiff's
counsel believing that plaintiff's spousal support should
cease under the language of the consent judgment of divorce
because she remarried. Plaintiff's counsel told him that
plaintiff did not have a "legal" marriage and thus
it did not affect his obligation. Defendant, however,
understood that the spousal support provision would terminate
upon "marriage," and he did not understand the
terms of the parties' settlement and consent judgment to
mean only upon a "legal marriage." Defendant moved
for an order dismissing his alimony/spousal support
obligation and requested reimbursement, sanctions, and
attorney fees.
The
trial court held an evidentiary hearing on May 15, 2017.
Following the hearing, the parties each submitted proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. On July 20, 2017,
the trial court issued its opinion and order. The trial court
found that plaintiff participated in a private religious
ceremony performed by her pastor and afterward held herself
out as married in a manner that convinced others that she
remarried. The trial court concluded that plaintiff signed no
marriage license to prevent the termination of her spousal
support. The trial court found that plaintiff lacked
credibility and concluded that her actions were done to
defraud the court and circumvent the parties' consent
judgment of divorce. The trial court stated that divorce
actions are equitable proceedings and a court of equity molds
its relief according to the character of the case. The ...