Background
Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2002 and had four children together. In September 2024, defendant relocated to Turkey. Plaintiff filed for divorce in December 2024 when two minor children remained in the household. Defendant failed to respond to the complaint, and a default was entered in April 2025 for failure to defend.
In October 2025, plaintiff moved for entry of a default judgment of divorce. Defendant then filed a motion to set aside the default, claiming he suffered undisclosed psychological conditions that prevented him from participating in the proceedings. The trial court held a hearing where only plaintiff testified. She testified regarding custody arrangements and the equitable division of assets and liabilities. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the default and entered a judgment awarding plaintiff sole physical and legal custody of the minor children, the marital home, and other property, while assigning defendant all marital debts in his name.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the default. Defendant failed to establish good cause because he provided no documented evidence of any health condition and did not substantiate his alleged emergency medical event. Although defendant claimed being out of the country was a reason for his default, he did not raise this argument before the trial court and had received notice of the default, so this did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with court requirements.
The court also affirmed the property division, finding it equitable under the circumstances. Although defendant was properly excluded from participating in the proceedings due to his default status, the trial court was still required to—and did—make findings supporting an equitable distribution. Defendant, a medical doctor, had received approximately $2 million from selling medical clinics, took $575,000 to Turkey, and left plaintiff and the children with no financial resources or support, resulting in their eviction. The court awarded plaintiff the marital home valued at $662,500 (representing both her marital share and compensation for her portion of the business sale proceeds), while defendant was assigned his own substantial debts including approximately $1 million in IRS tax liability and over $250,000 in credit card debt.
However, the court vacated the custody award, finding clear error. The trial court failed to first determine whether an established custodial environment existed with either parent before awarding sole custody to plaintiff. This determination is mandatory under Michigan law before applying best-interest factors. The matter was remanded for the trial court to make this finding on remand and, if appropriate, to explicitly apply the correct custody standards.
Key Takeaways
- A defaulted party’s mere assertions of health problems, without documented evidence, do not establish good cause to set aside a default judgment in domestic relations cases.
- Even when a defendant is in default, the trial court must still make findings supporting an equitable division of marital property and must consider the totality of circumstances, including each spouse’s conduct and financial contributions.
- A trial court must determine whether an established custodial environment exists with either or both parents before making an initial custody determination—this is mandatory, not discretionary.
- Different evidentiary standards apply: clear and convincing evidence if an established custodial environment exists, or preponderance of the evidence if none exists, plus explicit findings on all MCL 722.23 best-interest factors.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for family law practitioners handling default divorces. While a defendant’s failure to defend results in entry of a default, the trial court’s obligations do not end there—it must still perform its judicial function to ensure equitable property division with supporting findings. The decision also clarifies that vague health or personal problems do not automatically excuse a party from responding to litigation, particularly when unsubstantiated by documentation.
Perhaps most significantly for practitioners, the opinion reiterates the mandatory procedural steps for custody determinations under Michigan law. Trial courts cannot simply award custody based on the requesting parent’s testimony without first establishing whether an established custodial environment exists and then explicitly addressing each statutory best-interest factor. This remand requirement protects the rights of absent parents to have custody decisions made according to law, even in default contexts.