Background
Roy and Sarah Elturk married in October 2009. Both worked full-time at the outset, but after the birth of their first child, Sarah left the workforce to manage the household and raise the couple’s four children while Roy built a substantial income as a dentist. The marriage broke down by late 2022; Roy moved out and filed for divorce in December 2022. The Oakland County Circuit Court entered mutual restraining orders to preserve the financial status quo during proceedings.
After a multi-day bench trial ending March 1, 2024, the trial court issued a detailed written opinion. Sarah accused Roy of three extramarital affairs and of dissipating more than $180,000 in marital funds between January 2018 and July 2023. Roy disputed both claims and sought, among other things, imputation of income to Sarah. In the weeks before trial, the kitchen of the marital home was demolished during an ongoing renovation, complicating valuation of the home.
The trial court found Roy at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, valued the marital home at $245,000 and awarded it to Sarah, and ruled in Sarah’s favor on several financial disputes. The resulting divorce judgment awarded Sarah: (1) $91,931.50 representing her share of marital funds the court found Roy had dissipated; (2) 5% interest on certain property awards, including her 60% share of Roy’s business interests; and (3) $2,747 per month in spousal support for 66 months. Roy appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the dissipated-assets award and vacated the interest award, but otherwise affirmed. On dissipation, the court found clear error because the trial court never made findings that Roy spent the $183,863 “wastefully or foolishly” — the legal standard for dissipation. The challenged spending on food, entertainment, vinyl records, and gifts to family members reflected Roy’s established spending habits throughout the marriage, and the bulk of the spending preceded the period when either party considered the marriage to be in serious jeopardy (which both parties placed in late 2022, not 2018). Post-filing expenditures related to attorney fees, which the trial court itself had already excluded from dissipation.
On interest, the court vacated the award because the trial court offered no equitable justification for it. A divorce judgment is not a money judgment bearing statutory interest under MCL 600.6013(1), and while a court may award interest under its equitable powers, it must explain why doing so is fair and not merely punitive or a windfall. Here, none of Roy’s payments were delinquent at the time judgment was entered, Roy was never held in contempt, and the trial court made no findings tying the interest award to any equitable purpose.
The court affirmed all remaining rulings: the $245,000 home valuation (within the range supported by the evidence and based on the most current appraisal available after the parties declined to submit updated ones); the 60% property award to Sarah based on fault (Roy’s affairs were relevant, and fault was one of many factors considered, not a disproportionate one); and the spousal support award of $2,747 per month for 66 months (supported by adequate findings on all relevant factors, including the parties’ income disparity, Sarah’s years out of the workforce, and the non-income-producing nature of many assets she received).
Key Takeaways
- Dissipation requires a finding that funds were spent wastefully or foolishly; spending consistent with a spouse’s established lifestyle throughout the marriage — even on luxuries like vinyl records, dining out, and family gifts — does not meet that standard absent evidence of intent to deplete assets in anticipation of divorce.
- A court may award interest on divorce property payments only through its equitable powers and must articulate a specific equitable justification; interest is improper where no payments are overdue and no contempt has been found.
- A party who fails to provide updated appraisals after a court expressly invites them cannot complain on appeal that the court relied on older valuations.
- Evidence of a pattern of infidelity — including affairs predating the formal divorce proceedings — is relevant to the fault factor in property division and admissible for that purpose under Michigan law.
- Child support payments need not be counted as income when calculating spousal support absent statutory authority or caselaw requiring it.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold Michigan courts must apply before characterizing spending as dissipation of marital assets. By requiring findings of wasteful or foolish expenditure — and insisting that courts anchor the relevant time period to when divorce actually became imminent — the opinion limits a potentially expansive theory that could sweep in years of ordinary spending simply because a marriage later failed. Family law practitioners should take note that lifestyle consistency is a meaningful defense to dissipation claims.
The court’s treatment of interest awards reinforces that equitable powers in divorce proceedings are not self-executing: trial courts must make affirmative findings justifying interest, and the mere existence of contested finances during a divorce is insufficient. Together, these holdings give appellate handles to spouses who face broad financial claims resting on conclusory findings rather than specific equitable analysis.