Background
Janette and Stephen Robbins divorced in 2008. Their divorce judgment awarded Janette her State Farm life insurance policies, Stephen his State Farm and John Hancock policies, and Janette ownership of a policy on her daughter Heather’s life. It also awarded Janette and Stephen joint ownership of State Farm policies on the lives of their children, Mark and Katelyn.
In 2021, Janette sought relief from and enforcement and clarification of the divorce judgment, alleging fraud and asserting that Stephen had failed to make her a joint owner of Mark’s and Katelyn’s policies. Stephen testified that State Farm told him joint ownership was unavailable, so he instead designated Janette as successor owner. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered Stephen to transfer the active policies to Mark and Katelyn and to compensate Mark, Katelyn, and Heather for lapsed policies.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Janette’s effort to enforce the property provisions of the divorce judgment was governed by the 10-year limitations period in MCL 600.5809(3), rather than the one-year deadline governing fraud-based requests for relief from judgment. Although her enforcement request was filed more than 10 years after entry of the judgment, Stephen waived the applicable limitations defense by failing to raise it in his first responsive pleading. His references to a one-year deadline did not preserve a defense under MCL 600.5809(3).
The court nevertheless held that the trial court exceeded its authority by awarding the policies and compensation for lapsed policies to the children. A divorce court generally may adjudicate only the rights of the spouses and cannot compel a spouse to transfer marital property to third parties, including the parties’ children. Although a court may enforce an agreement incorporated into a divorce judgment that provides property to third parties, the record did not establish such an agreement here. The judgment’s plain language granted joint ownership to Janette and Stephen, not to the children.
The court affirmed the ruling that Janette’s enforcement request could be considered, vacated the order insofar as it awarded property to the children, and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A claim enforcing a property settlement in a Michigan divorce judgment is subject to the 10-year limitations period in MCL 600.5809(3).
- A party may waive that limitations defense by failing to identify it in the first responsive pleading; invoking a different one-year deadline is insufficient.
- Without an incorporated settlement agreement authorizing a transfer to third parties, a divorce court cannot award marital property to the parties’ children.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between permissible enforcement of a divorce judgment and an impermissible revision of its property distribution. Although the trial court could address Stephen’s failure to provide Janette the joint ownership stated in the judgment, it could not substitute a transfer of the policies to the children.
The opinion also underscores the need to plead the correct statute-of-limitations defense promptly. Stephen’s failure to invoke the 10-year statute in his initial response allowed the otherwise untimely enforcement request to proceed.