IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

W THE CIRCUIT COURT-FAMILY DIVISION FOR THE COUNTY OF CASS

STEVEN K. HAINES,

Plaintiff,

V.

LISA HADES,

Defendant

File No. 10-242-DM

COURT'S OPINION

Historv of This Case

Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Summons for Divorce on March 17,201 0 represented by

Attorney Peter Smith of Niles, Michigan. Attorney Mark Westrate of Dowagiac, Michigan

entered an appearance as co-counsel at a later date. Attorney Paul A. Taglia of St. Joseph,

Michigan firm, Taglia, Dumke, White & Schmidt PC entered his appearance for Defendant on

April 12,2010 and filed an answer subsequently on April 16,2010. Attorney Mark D. Boveri of

South Bend, Indiana appeared as co-counsel. The matter was promptly scheduled by the Court

but on joint request of the parties, the Court extended the mediation deadline and rescheduled the

trial past January 1,201 1. The original attorneys met with the Court to develop a schedule of

events. The posture of the case in the beginning was primarily an attempt by the parties to

reconcile the marriage with a possible post-nuptial agreement and the attorneys agreeing to work

jointly in developing a list of assets and determining value by use of the same expert. The

attempt to reconcile the marriage and the agreement of the attorneys to utilize on the same expert

and develop a shared opinion of value was unsuccessful. Attorney W. Jack Keiser of Miller

Johnson substituted in for Attorney Paul Taglia on June 13,201 1. Unfortunately, the time period

from March 17,2010 until June 13,201 1 resulted in little or no progress in resolving the case or

even in determining value of assets that would be useful for the parties and the Court if the

matter proceeded to trial. In regard to the Court's obligation to insure timeliness in this matter,

the Court took the position that given the high level of competency of the attorneys involved, a

less "hands on" approach would be appropriate. In retrospect, the Court should have dismissed

the action for lack of progress and required the Plaintiff to refile a Complaint. Parties might

argue that to do so would be more form over substance.

However, in June of 201 1, once the parties determined that the matter would not be

resolved, the case became extremely contentious. There were numerous discovery motions filed

and heard throughout the case. Discovery motions are extremely difficult given the he saidlshe

said type of arguments that often go with discovery motions. From the Court's standpoint, the

discovery motions were further complicated because they were not evidentiary-based. Given the

complexities of the parties' assets and discovery issues, the amount of time it would take to hear

the motions as an evidentiary motion would have been impossible. It is clear that not only was

discovery between the parties difficult, but the difficulties continued right up to the date of the

trial because the experts' exhibits were exchanged just before the trial date. Completion of

discovery was difficult and delayed the trial. In addition, every issue in the case was contested.

The Court bifurcated custody, visitation, and occupancy of the marital home for evidentiary

hearing which took place on November 22,201 1. The parties subsequently were able to resolve

custody through use of a court-appointed expert and the occupancy of the marital home by

agreement. The trial itself took 8 days. The trial began on July 24,2012 and was heard

subsequently on July 25, July 26, July 27, July 31, August 9, August 24, and August 28 of 2012.

Providing so many dates, given the Court's other responsibilities including its heavy docket with

child protective proceedings with strict time limits mandated in those cases, was difficult and

resulted in moving many other hearings to later dates. Given the complexity of the case, the

Court ordered that final arguments be submitted by briefs which were due on October 12,2012.

Shortly after the filing of the post-trial brief, Defendant moved to reopen proofs; that motion was

heard on November 19,2012. The Court granted the Defendant's request and required any

additional proofs to be submitted in writing. Those briefs and documents were to be filed on

December 4,2012.

The parties requested that the file be sealed; this was denied by the Court. The reason for

the request was because of the identifying nature of the parties assets, and to eliminate the

concern of the parties, the Court agreed to seal both the exhibits received during the trial and the

briefs submitted. The extensive exhibits and briefs are contained in a 5 foot by 3 foot plastic

container marked "exhibits."

Custody

Custody was one issue not contested at trial, however, custody had previously been

contested. The parties with the assistance of the Court and a counselor recommended by the

Court, Dr. Rebecca Katosvich, Ph.D., LLP, LMSW, were able to resolve the issue of custody of

the minor child, Will Haines, DOB: September 10, 1996. The parties agreed on joint legal and

joint physical custody of said minor child. The custodial arrangement is one week on, one week

off. Based upon the agreement, coupled with the fact that the custodial arrangement has been

successful for over a year, the Court finds the agreement to be in the best interest of the minor

child. The Judgment of Divorce shall reflect joint legal and joint physical custody, shared

equally, one week on, one week off. The Judgment of Divorce shall also contain a standard

provision relative to the inherent rights of the child, and language that the parties shall equally

share parenting time with the minor child on an alternating week basis with parenting time

exchanges being on Fridays after school. The parent commencing parenting time shall pick up

the minor child. The holidays shall be determined by the Cass County Friend of the Court

Handbook. Given that the parties have historically resided in the State of Indiana and most

recently in Michigan, the Court incorporates Attorney Keiser's recommendation that the child

have legal residence with both parents in Michigan and Indiana and that the domicile or

residence of said minor shall not be moved from the State of Michigan or Indiana without prior

approval of the Court is appropriate and shall be incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce. All

other standard provisions shall be included in the Judgment of Divorce.

Child Support

The amount of child support was contested. All child support determinations, including

request for modification, must be begin with the application of Michigan Child Support Formula

(MCSF); MCL 552.605(2). The current formula, Michigan Child Support Formula of 2008, is

presumed to be appropriate. The Court did not use the 2013 version because all of the evidence

was submitted prior to 2013. Callev v Callev, 197 Mich App 380 (1992). The amount of income

for each party had to be determined in order to calculate child support. Defendant opines that the

three (3) year average of Plaintiff's income is $887,959.00. (See page 3 of Defendant's Closing

Brief.) Defendant admits that the original calculation for Plaintiffs income was erroneous,

which unfortunately resulted in a substantial amount of trial time. (See extensive argument in

Plaintiff's Post-Trial Brief.) Plaintiff asserts that the three (3) year average of his income is

$831,000.00. After the close of proofs and submission of briefs, Defendant requested to reopen

proofs relative to the 201 1 filing of Plaintiffs income tax return. For the reasons stated later

under the tax portion of this opinion, the late submission was not considered for either child

support or spousal support.

Based on the trial testimony of Mr. Scarpone and Mr. Adamy, the Court determines that

$831,000.00 is an appropriate three (3) year average of Plaintiffs income. Mr. Adamy through

the trial brief of Defendant, conceded his error in Plaintiffs income and Adamy's original three

(3) year average was $1,387,000.00. This resulted in an approximate $5,000,000.00 error in the

calculations. (Trial testimony August 9,2012.)

In regards to Defendant's income, the Court determines that imputation is appropriate.

The Michigan Child Support Guidelines allows imputation and there are various factors that the

Court can use in determining whether the unexercised ability to earn should be considered. The

factors include the following:

1. Prior employment experience and history;

2. Educational level and special skills or training;

3. Physical and mental disability;

4. Availability for work;

5. Availability of opportunity to work in the local geographical area;

6 . The prevailing wage base in the local geographical area;

7. Diligence, exercise of seeking appropriate employment;

8. Evidence that the parent in question is able to earn the imputed income;

9. Personal histo ry... ;

10. The presence of the parties' children in the parent's home and its impact on the

5

parent's earnings;

1 1. Whether there has been a significant reduction of income compared to the period that proceeded the filing of the initial complaint or the motion for modification ...

See also Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189 (1998). Guidelines p. 9-10.

The Court determines that it is appropriate to impute income to Defendant in the amount

of $41,600.00. Defendant has a Masters Degree in social work. The child of the parties is in a

boarding school, thus there are no child care responsibilities during the week. Defendant is

healthy and capable of employment. A salary of $41,600.00 is derived from the salary of an

entry level social worker, Social Service Specialist 9-1 1, for the State of Michigan. The State of

Michigan recently hired five hundred (500) social workers at an annual salary of $41,000.00 as

entry level. Attached to this opinion is the Occupational Employment and Wages Report, May,

201 1 for social workers which sets forth various prevailing wages across the country; this

supports the Court's imputation of $41,600.00 figure. The fact that the State recently hired five

hundred (500) social workers is a strong indication of the availability of work and prevailing

wage. In addition, Plaintiffs argument that Defendant would have $36,000.00 of passive income

is persuasive. (See page 21 of Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief.) Therefore, the Court imputed

$77,600.00 as income annually to Mrs. Haines. Based upon the above, the Court determines that

monthly child support for one (1) child with each parent having 182.5 overnights is $2,209.00.

Attached hereto and incorporated is the Court's calculation for child support. In addition, the

Court orders that Plaintiff receive the Child Support federal tax deduction, given the substantial

amount of support paid to Defendant.

The minor child attends the prestigious La Lumiere School in Laporte, Indiana. Chief

Justice John Roberts is a notable alumni. Plaintiff indicated that as long as the minor child

qualifies for admission to La Lumiere that he will pay the tuition. (See Plaintiffs brief.)

Therefore, Plaintiff shall pay the minor child's tuition. All standard provisions should be

included in the support provisions of the Judgment of Divorce.

Parenting: Time

The holidays shall be alternated pursuant to the Cass County Friend of the Court policy

on parenting time. Plaintiff requested that each party be granted a three week consecutive

parenting time for the summer. Defendant's objection that it would be harmful is not supported

by the record or evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs request is granted. The remaining summer will

be alternated week on and week off. Each parent shall notify the other parent of the three (3)

week summer vacation period preferred by Easter of each year. The Court declines to order

security for child support. Plaintiff has provided support for the minor and wife throughout the

pendency of the divorce.

Soousal Support

Defendant has requested long-term or permanent alimony and Plaintiff opposes the same.

The Court's authority to award spousal support to either party in a divorce action is established

by MCL 552.23(1):

"Upon entry of a judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage who are committed to the care and custody of either party, the court may also award to either party the part of the real or personal state of either party and spousal support out of the real and personal estate, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as the court considers just and reasonable, after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the circumstances of the case."

The case of Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619(2003) lists fourteen (14) factors for trial

courts to consider when evaluating a claim for spousal support. Those factors are as follows:

"Among the factors that should be considered are: (1) the past relations and conduct of the parties, (2) the length of marriage, (3) the abilities of the parties to work, (4) the source and amount of property awarded to the parties, (5) the parties ages, (6) the abilities of the parties to pay alimony, (7) the present situation of the parties, (8) the needs of the parties, (9) the parties health, (10) the prior standard of living of the parties and whether either is responsible for the support of others, (1 1) contribution of the parties to the joint estate, (12) a party's fault and in causing in the divorce, (13) the effect of cohabitation on a party's financial status, and (14) general principles of equity" Olson v Olson, sunra, p. 63 1.

There is no "rigid and arbitraq formulas to account for the parties' unique circumstances

and relative positions" when determining spousal support. Mvland v Mvland, 290 Mich App 691,

694 (2010). The Court of Appeals in u d ruled that the trial court erred in applying a formula

that failed to account for the parties' unique circumstances and relative positions, including the

parties' ages, health, ability to work, needs, previous standard of living, and whether one of them

would be supporting a dependent, and finally the Court must make findings on each factor that is

relevant to the claim of spousal support, Suarh v Suarks 440 Mich 141 (1992).

Past Relations and Conduct of the Parties. This factor includes and determines how the

parties conducted their marriage as well as looks at reasons for the breakdown of the marriage, in

other words, fault. Hanawav v Hanawav, 208 Mich App 278(1995). However, this factor

should not be assigned undue weight and fault and it is only one factor, S'arks v Spar.ks, sunra,

p. 160. In this matter, both parties blame each other for the breakdown of the marriage. But after

listening to extensive testimony, the Court finds that the tragic loss of two (2) children, and the

issues that go often with the loss of children such as anger, grief, depression, as well as the

parties' very different personalities is the reason and basis for the breakdown of this relationship.

Lenefh of the Marriage. The term of the marriage is relevant in determining spousal

support. Johnson v Johnson, 346 Mich 418 (1956). This is a marriage of twenty(20)

years.

Abilitv of the Parties to Work. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes Plaintiff's

ability not only to work, but to earn a substantial income. Defendant has spent the majority of

the marital relationship in what appears to be a traditional motherhomemaker role. She has the

ability to work and has worked previously as a licensed real estate agent in her father's business.

Defendant also has a master's degree in social work and would have the ability to earn a living as

a social worker as noted in the child support portion of this Court's opinion. Although her

employment prospects are slightly speculative, she has the ability to work and the minor child of

the parties attends boarding school. Thus, she has the time to work. The husband's earning

capacity is superior to the wife's potential earning capacity.

The Source and Amount of Property Awarded. The focus for this factor is the income

earning potential of the assets, rather than their value, especially when both parties have

substantial asset and there is a significant disparity in income. Gate v Gates, 256 Mich App 420

(2003). The Court will be splitting the property 50150 which is detailed in the property portion of

this Court's opinion. Wife will be receiving income earning assets and as noted in the Olson

court, although she will receive substantial assets "...it would be inequitable to require her to

consume her capital to support herself." Olson, supra, p. 633. Husband will financially recover

more quickly than wife based upon his earning capacity.

The Ages of the Parties. Husband is forty-nine (49) and wife is fifty (50). Had this

divorce occurred ten (10) years ago, fifty (50) probably would be considered not far from early

retirement; however, times have changed significantly in the last ten years. Wife's age may make

9

it difficult for her to obtain employment with a substantial pension and other types of

compensation that come with a long term career, however, wife's award of property will provide

for her in her retirement. Wife has the ability to work if she chooses so as outlined in the child

support portion of this opinion.

The Ability to Pay. Plaintiff has the ability to pay spousal support. Husband has the

ability to pay whether the Court accepts the imputed amount of $250,000.00 per year or the three

(3) year average.

The Present Situation of the Parties. In general, this factor considers the combined effect

of the individual factors of the present ability of one spouse to pay and the present or anticipated

needs of the spouse seeking spousal support. Magee v Magee, 218 Mich App 158 (1996).

Although wife has the ability to earn, this ability to earn is substantially less than the husband.

The Needs of the Parties. Generally, cases under this factor evaluate the combined effect

of various factors. Marree v Magee, 218 Mich App 158 (1996). Need is a relative term;

however, wife is not required to dissipate her assets.

The Parties' Health. Based upon the evidence submitted, the Court finds that both parties

are healthy.

The Prior Standard of Living of the Parties and Whether Either Partv is Responsible for

the Support of Others. During thc course of the marriage, the parties had a very high standard of

living. Both parties will be able to continue a high standard of living during the divorce;

however, Plaintiff husband's standard of living will be more substantial based upon his ability to

earn. Throughout the divorce, Plaintiff paid the bills of the parties and Defendant's standard of

living remained the same.

Contributions of the Parties to the Joint Estate. Both parties contributed to the joint

estate, but Plaintiff contributed more fmancially. Defendant's role was more of a traditional

homemaker.

Resvonsibilitv for Others Suvvort. In Parrish v Parrish, 138 Mich App 546 (1984) the

Court was allowed to consider support of others. The Plaintiff will be providing substantial child

support of the minor and will be paying for his expensive education.

The Parties Fault and Cause of the Divorce. As indicated under Factor 1, the past

relations and conduct of the parties is relevant. Both parties made accusation that the other was

at fault. The Court did not find fault.

General Princivles of Eauitv. Parrish v Pari~ish, 138 Mich App 546 (1984) is one case

that considered general principles and equity. This Court considered the amount needed and the

amount husband could reasonably afford, balancing both parties incomes, needs and abilities.

Guidelines. There are no statutory guidelines, however, there are two (2) non-binding

guidelines that have been accepted by various courts. The guidelines are helpful and often used

to determine whether alimony should be paid, for how long, and at what appropriate level. Cass

County Circuit Court Friend of the Court/Administrator Roland Fancher has developed

guidelines and these guidelines, like Washenaw County Attorney Greg Ross's guidelines, are

based upon a weighted formula. Pursuant to Mr. Fancher's guidelines, spousal support is not

indicated. However, neither set of guidelines consider health, fault, the differences in the parties'

incomes, (particularly when the family's past standard of living is considered) the significant

period of time out of the work force and other circumstances particular to the couple.

Attached please find the Court's calculation for spousal support. The total weighted

points were substantially below the level where alimony is appropriate. The difference between

11

the Court's calculation in regards to spousal support and Defendant's calculation is that the

amount of income for the husband was determined to be less than used by the Defendant.

Further, the Court imputed income to the wife in an amount that provided zero (0) points per

weighted income. Income for Plaintiff was determined to be $831,000.00. However, given the

Court's finding under the spousal support criteria set forth above, particularly in the subjective

factors, the ability for the parties to work, the needs of the parties, and the prior standard of

living of the parties, it is the opinion of the Court that alimony for the Defendant is appropriate.

Using the guidelines for alimony, the Court determines that the appropriate amount to be

$8,669.00 per month.

Length and Term of the Saousal Sua~ort

The decision of rehabilitative versus permanent spousal support is a more difficult issue

than whether to award spousal support in this case. A review of the substantial case law in

Michigan was helpful and was used by this Court to determine that rehabilitative alimony is more

appropriate than permanent or long term. It was clear to this Court that the Defendant has an

inability to make decisions; she procrastinates. One example of this was that she did not buy

furniture for the previous marital home. She had the opportunity to take some of the marital

assets during the divorce and build a house, but she declined. On the record she said she wanted

a "simple little house," but her history shows otherwise. Given that Defendant should find

employment, an award of rehabilitative alimony will allow her time to adjust her lifestyle to one

not based upon Plaintiffs income, Voukatidis v Voukatidis, 495 Mich App 338 (1 992) and will

allow her time to enter the workforce. Zecchin v Zecchin, 149 Mich App 723 (1986). Mrs.

Haines is not a spouse who has no career or marketable skills as outlined in Johnson v Johnson,

346 Mich 418 (1956), nor will she enter the workforce with little possibility of employment or

12

retirement security given the substantial assets that she receives. Mapee v Mapee, 218 Mich App

158 (1 996). Although husband has a far substantial and superior ability to earn income as set

forth in McNamara v McNamara, 178 Mich App 382 (1989) wife has the skills, knowledge and

ability to earn. Spousal support is awarded for four (4) years which will give wife time to build

her home and to be established in the work force. She also was supported throughout the

divorce. Thus, she effectively has had 7 years of support. The spousal support in this matter is

intended to be deductible by the payor and included in the gross income of the recipient; and to

ensure the deductibility should include that the payments will be in cash pursuant to the

Judgment of Divorce. Plaintiff is not liable to make substitute payments on the death of the

payee. The alimony or spousal support provision of the Judgment of Divorce shall include all the

mandatory provisions required when spousal support is ordered such as mandatory income

withholding, a retroactivity provision, notice of liens, etc., unless the parties agree otherwise.

Double-Diaoing Argument

Plaintiff argues that if the Court awards spousal support that the Plaintiffs salary should

be imputed at $250,000.00. The basis for this argument is that to use a higher income would be

to "double dip" because the Defendant will be receiving half the value of the company when

dividing the marital assets. Double dipping refers to cases where business valuation is at issue

and professional practices are valued by capitalizing its income, some of which will later be used

to determine spousal support. Thus, arguably the Court would be using the same income twice.

During the pendency of this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision regarding the

issue of the so-called "double dip," Loutts v Loutts, Court of Appeals docket number 297427,

September 4,2012. Attorney and Certified Public Accountant Joseph Cunningham summarized

the L- case in the a recent Family Law Journal, October, 2012. The L@&LY Court opined:

13

" ... that the Michigan statute governing spousal support does not follow a strict formula", -, 290 Mich App at 697. Indeed, "given the statutory mandate of MCLA 553.23 ... there is no room for the application of any rigid and arbitrary formulas when determining the appropriate amount of spousal suppo rt..." id at 699-700. Accordingly, we decline to adopt a bright-lined rule with respect to 'excess' income and hold that courts must employ a case-by-case approach when determining whether 'double dipping' will achieve an outcome that is just and reasonable within the meaning of MCR 552.23(1). Loutts. supra, p. 5.

Further, the L- court, by footnote, noted that the Ohio case of Heller v Heller relied

on by L m court was misplaced since a subsequent appeal in the same case in the Ohio

appellate court stated its decision was limited to the facts of the case and was not intended to

promulgated a flat prohibition against double dipping. Mr. Adamy was convincing that the

double dipping principles were more applicable where the payor's business interest is unable to

be sold or a substantial amount of value of the business is based upon goodwill. This Court used

conservative principles in determining the value of the business and often uses three (3) year

averages for determining child support as a best practice. In the final analysis, this is a gentleman

who has the ability, skills and knowledge to substantially earn more than $250,000.00 per year.

In circumstances like this case, following a flat prohibition on double dipping would not provide

a just and reasonable result.

Considering the Court has used a conservative basis for value of the business, coupled

with a significant record that Plaintiff is highly skilled and knowledgeable and will likely earn

substantially more than $250,000.00 per year, the double dipping argument under this set of facts

is not persuasive.

Division of Marital Property

The division of marital property must be equitable, just and reasonable. The statutory

grounds are set forth in MCL 552.19, MCL 552.23, MCL 552.27, and MCL 552.401. There is

14

no mathematical formula for deciding the property settlement, but the Court's duty is to reach a

decision that is fair and equitable. Suarks v Suarks, 440 Mich 141 (1992). Courts have broad

discretion dividing the marital estate. Kendall v Kendall, 106 Mich App 240 (1981). Generally,

an equitable division is one that is "roughly congruent." Jansen v Jansen, 205 Mich App 169

(1994). Property settlement must be fair under all the circumstances. Nalevavko v Nalevavko,

198 Mich App 163 (1993). Some cases even hold that there should be apresumption of

congruency. Bvin~ton v Bvington, 224 Mich App 103, 115 (1997). @arks, su-pra, is the leading

case in regard to division of property. The SDarks case set forth a list of criteria that a court

should look at in determining an equitable distribution. The &&s Court at p. 159 stated the

following:

"As acknowledged above, the division of property is not governed by any set rules. Nevertheless, this court has established certain principles of general application. In Johnson v Johnson, 346 Mich418,431; 78 NW2d 216 (1956), we said:

'The portion of property awarded to each party depends upon all the equitable factors involved, including the following: source of property, contribution towards its acquisition, the years of married life, the needs of the parties, their earning ability and also the cause for divorce.'

These general standards have been refined and expanded by the Court of Appeals, and we readily acknowledge that additional factors beyond those listed in Johnson, may be relevant to the disposition of assets. We hold that the following factors are to be considered wherever they are relevant to the circumstances of the particular case: (1) duration of marriage, (2) contributions of the parties to the marital estate, (3) age of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) life status of the parties, (6) necessities and circumstances of the parties, (7) earning ability of the parties, (8) past relations and conduct of the parties, and (9) general principles of equity. Perrin v Perrin, 169 Mich App 18,22; 425 NW2d 494 (1988). There may even be additional factors that are relevant to a particular case. For example, the Court may chose to consider the interruption of the personal career or education of either party. The determination of relevant factors will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case."

This marriage can be considered long term. Both of the parties contributed throughout

the marriage and both of the parties appear to be healthy and certainly capable of employment.

There are substantial assets so that each of the parties will receive substantial assets upon the

dissolution of this marriage. Defendant argues that fault is a factor in the division of property

and that Plaintiff is at fault. Plaintiff blames Defendant. And although "[fJault is an element in

the search for equitable division - it is not punitive." McDoupnI 1, McDougd, 451 Mich 80, 89 -

90 ( 1996). See also B e r ~ e r v Beraer, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) where the issue of property

awarded was remanded to the trial court for a more congruent division where trial court divided

the property 70130 based primarily on intent to punish the husband for extramarital affair. After

spending eight (8) days in trial with the parties, this Court finds that we have two (2) highly

intelligent individuals who in the fmal analysis are not suited to remain together. Defendant

submitted no evidence to lead this Court to believe that an extramarital affair was the reason or

basis for the breakdown of this relationship. Although Plaintiff was convicted of domestic

violence, his explanation of the circumstances is plausible and likely. This Court issued a PPO

against Defendant for circumstances similar to Plaintiffs explanation of his domestic violence

conviction. Plaintiff submits the breakdown is Defendant's fault; he claims she never supported

him professionally and she was emotionally abusive. Counseling did not save the marriage. The

filing of the divorce and attempt to reconcile during the divorce did not resolve the issues. The

tragic loss of two (2) children and the issues that often go with the loss of children in this Court's

opinion are the basis for the breakdown of the marriage relationship. Different personalities also

contributed. Anger, grief, and depression ended this relationship. It is the Court's opinion that

the property division should be congruent, particularly in light of th e Court's findings in regards

to spousal support, which will equalize the disparity in earning capacity in the future.

16

Marital Home

The marital home of the parties is located at 71 108 Karlsen Lane, Niles, Michigan 49120.

The parties have spent a substantial amount of money on the home. Estimates of the cost are

over $5,000,000.00.

The parties presented two (2) opposing experts on the valuation for the marital home.

Plaintiff presented Robert Ogg, who opined that the value of the home was $1,650,000.00.

Defendant presented Iverson Grove, who opined that without obsolescence factors the value of

the home was $5,050,000.00, and with obsolescence factors the value of the home was

$3,855,000.00. In addition to value, Defendant argued that given the substantial amount spent on

the home, it would inequitable and unfair to use the lower valuation and allow Plaintiff to obtain

the home. Defendant therefore requests that the home be sold and that she be allowed exclusive

occupancy until the sale of the home. Plaintiff proposes that he receive the home.

The real estate experts testified on July 25,2012 and their work product and appraisals

are found at Exhibit 14. The appraisal prepared by Iverson Grove is 14a, and 14b is the appraisal

prepared by Robert Ogg. An appraisal prepared by Steven Sante, who is a bank appraiser, can be

found at 14c.

Both Ogg and Grove used a cost approach. However, Ogg also developed a sales

comparison approach. Grove did not. Grove did not do a sales approach which this Court finds

to be inappropriate. The issue is not whether the parties put too much money into the home. Not

all homes are intended to become an investment. It is abundantly clear that the parties spent a

substantial amount on this home and it contains superior amenities; however, there is a

significant loss in the value of the home because of its opulence. Both parties agreed to build

this elaborate house. It is a significant stretch without any evidence in support that the husband

17

built such an opulent house knowing that he was going to then divorce Defendant, and that there

would be a significant devaluation of the value of the house from the actual cost. Based upon the

evidence submitted, the value set forth by Robert Ogg appears to be reasonable. The Court may

base its findings of value on expert testimony. Czernecki v Czernecki, 325 Mich 634 (1949).

Ogg's valuation is consistent with the tax appraiser for the township and is consistent with the

bank appraiser, Steven Sante. Mr. Sante's valuation was $1,875,000.00. The difference of

$3,400,000.00 between the two (2) appraisals does not indicate that both appraisals are flawed,

but rather in this Court's opinion that Defendant's expert Mr. Grove overreached in determining

a value. Therefore, this Court determines the value of the real estate to be in the amount of

$1,655,000.00.

Based upon the testimony of the parties, it is clear to the Court that Defendant does not

want to keep the marital home. In addition, Defendant clearly expressed her intent to build her

own home. Defendant remained in the home during the pendency of the divorce and requests to

remain in the home until she can build a new home, then sell the marital home and split the

proceeds. Defendant's plan would prolong this already protracted litigation. The sale of this

unusual home will be difficult and will likely cause additional litigation. During the trial, one of

the experts opined that if someone was to pay over a million dollars on a home, a new buyer

would be more likely to build rather than buy. The parties should equally bear the burden of the

home's opulence. For the above reasons, the Court awards the home at 71 108 Karlsen Lane,

Niles, Michigan 49120 to Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall receive possession 60 days after the entry of

the Judgment of Divorce.

Valuation of Business Assets

Because of the number of businesses, corporations, and LLCs owned by the parties,

business valuations and the comparative methodologies were the principle part of the evidence

presented during the trial. There were two experts: primarily, James Scarpone, who testified on

behalf of Plaintiff, and Eric Adamy who testified for Defendant. Both are extremely qualified

experts with substantial experience. Each expert was very convincing and could support his

position. Unfortunately, it appeared to the Court that each expert became an advocate for his

side and unfortunately some of the supporting documentation submitted by the attorneys was

more argumentative than helpful. At times the Court found Mr. Scarpone to be too conservative

and Mr. Adamy to be too liberal. Although it is certainly tempting to add the two (2) figures and

divide by two (2), the role of the Court is to determine appropriate value. In the final analysis,

the Court listened to both experts and found that in large part they used the same methodology.

Therefore, the Court's findings are based upon both the work of Mr. Scarpone and Mr. Adamy

with adjustments as noted. Each business or entity will be separately addressed below.

American Technolow ("ATC")

American Technology, hereinafter "ATC," is the primary business of the parties and is

owned 100% by Plaintiff. ATC makes custom electronics for the RV industry. As agreed upon

by the parties, the valuation date for the business was December 31,2010. Both experts used the

same valuation method, discounted cash flow. Mr. Adamy initially determined the value at

$6,572,000.00 and later adjusted it to $6,371,000.00. Mr. Scarpone 's initial determination of the

value was $4,065,000.00. Mr. Adamy's documentation and written appraisal is found at Exhibit

13a and Mr. Scarpone's written appraisal is found at Exhibit 13b. Mr. Scarpone testified on July

26 and July 27,2012, and Mr. Adamy testified on July 27 and July 3 1,2012. The Court recalls

19

that Mr. Scarpone attended nearly the entire trial and Mr. Adamy attended a large portion of the

trial. The difference in their appraisals is primarily the difference between the long-term growth

rate and "add-backs." Examples of the add-backs can be found in the Adamy valuation exhibits,

Exhibit A of 13a, marital residence expenses; Exhibit B of 13a, other discretionary expenses; and

Exhibit C of 13, credit card expenses of travel, travel entertainment and auto expenses.

Plaintiff cross-examined Mr. Adamy extensively. Based upon the evidence elicited in

cross, it appeared that Mr. Adamy's appraisal failed to correct many of the personal expenditures

that were "backed out" of ATC's books by corrective entries made at the end of the year.

The more substantial reason for the differences in value noted is the long-term growth

rate used by Mr. Scarpone and Mr. Adamy and the EBITDA margin used by each expert. (See

page 7 of Exhibit 13a of Adamy valuation; and page 22 of 13b of Scarpone's valuation.) Each

used a different discount rate.

The Court's role is to determine the value of the business; in other words, what would a

hypothetical willing and able buyer acting at arm's length pay for ATC, based upon factors such

as financial performance, growth prospects, the nature of the industry and economic and industry

conditions? Given the factors noted, a conservative approach for adjusted margin is appropriate,

especially in today's economic times and for the RV industry in particular. Mr. Scarpone's

approach appropriately did add-back items that were accounted for, as well as appropriately

deducted items that should not have been considered business expenses. But most importantly,

Mr. Adamy's approach did not adequately address the recreational vehicle industry based upon

the historic data. It is the opinion of this Court that the value of 100% interest in American

Technologies, Inc. as of the agreed valuation date of December 3 1,2010 is $4,467,154.00. This

amount is higher than Mr. Scarpone's original valuation because of the discount rate, but lower

than Mr. Adamy's valuation.

ALCO Acauisitions, Iuc.

ALCO is a distributor of small tools used primarily in the RV Industry and has primarily

two (2) principal buyers of tools. ALCO Acquisition, Inc. is a Sub S Corporation that is owned

33.33% by Steven Haines; 33.33% by Frank A. Vite, the father of Lisa A. Haines; and Curtis J.

Heeg, who also is a 33.33% owner. Mr. Heeg manages the company. According to Plaintiff,

ALCO has suffered recent losses, which is a corroborated by the fact that Mr. Heeg took a

substantial reduction in s a l q . As with ATC, the same methodology was used by both experts.

Mr. Adamy opined that the value of ALCO was $1,441,000.00 and that Mr. Haines' 33.33% <>

interest would be valued at $480,000.00. See Exhibit 13c, Page 14. Mr. Scarpone opined that

the enterprise value was $2,482,892.00. This is in comparison to Mr. Adamy's enterprise

valuation of $3,929,000.00. Mr. Scarpone, by reducing the enterprise value and using a minority

ownership interest, opined that as of December 31,2010 Plaintiff's interest is zero. Exhibit 13d,

p. 28.

As was outlined earlier, the key differences between Adamy and Scarpone's analyses are

the growth projections and margin projections. (Seep. 17 of Defendant's Trial Brief.) In

addition, Scarpone used the minority discount which was not utilized by Mr. Adamy. Given

that ALCO is part of the RV industry, coupled with the findings made by the Court under the

heading of ATC, the most appropriate approach to this issue is to adopt Mr. Scarpone's margins

and growth rates. In addition, this Court believes a minority discount is appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the value of ALCO is determined to be $122,361 .OO as set forth in Plaintiffs Brief.

See Exhibit 10.

Cheous Develoament Group. LLC

Cheops Development Group, LLC was the most confusing of all of the valuation issues.

Cheops was formed in August of 2000 with the primary purpose of serving as a holding company

for various passive investments in commercial real estate. Cheops is made up of various rental

properties, limited partnerships, and other enterprises. The following properties, partnerships or

companies comprise Cheops as follows: Applied Electronics; Bremen Enterprises; Bittersweet

Terrace; RCSBLLC; 527 Park Place, LLC; Lea-Jo, LLC; Credit Suisse Premier Private Equity

Partners, LLC; GLC Acquisitions, LLC; Gateway Properties, LLCIGLC Acquisitions 11; and

Spyglass Investments, LLC. A good description of the companies during the trial can be found

during the frst day of trial. (Steven Haines' testimony.) Both appraisers used an asset approach

in determining value. Mr. Adamy's valuation was originally $962,000.00 as of December 31,

2010, (Exhibit 13e, page 6). At trial, Mr. Adamy amended the value to $93 1,000.00. Mr.

Scarpone determined the value to be $277,359.00. (See Exhibit 13f, page 7). Each appraisal has

a separate valuation for the various holdings and each can be found in the respective exhibit book

13e for Adamy and 13f for Scarpone. The difference in valuation is based upon several factors.

Mr. Scarpone recognized minority discounts in some of the passive companies which Mr. Adamy

did not. The primary difference, however, was based upon what was referred to at trial as the

"Strati factor". Mr. Scarpone used appreciated book value for properties which were not

appraised and Mr. Adamy used debt values of the properties based upon prepared figures

allegedly determined by Alex Strati, Vice President of an Indiana bank. Mr. Strati has a long-

time business relationship with Plaintiff. Alex Strati testified that he did not know how these

numbers used by Mr. Adamy were obtained. Mr. Adamy testified that he opted to use the so

called Strati numbers instead of Famngton Appraisers and appreciated book value because he

22

believed that the bankers would "do their homework" and that the banks would not over-value

property. Mr. Adamy's reliance on the Strati numbers was flawed and the record is replete with

examples. In addition, it appears that minority interest should have been considered in several of

the holding companies in Cheops. Neither Mr. Adamy nor his associate made contact with Mr.

Strati to determine where these numbers were derived from. Using actual appraisals when

available (Farrington Appraisals) and book value is the prefened method of valuation.

Therefore, Mr. Scarpone's valuation method is more reasonable for Cheops and his conclusion of

value appears to be appropriately based.

Cheops Development Group is owned by Plaintiff at 88% and Will Haines at 12%.

Based on this an unusual configuration of ownership, the Court determines that the value of

Cheops is $315,181.00. The Court is not reducing the value of Cheops by $37,821.00 for the

small percent owned by the minor child since Mr. Haines has control over that interest. (See p. 7

of Exhibit 13f.)

Isis Development Grou~ , LLC.

Isis Development Group, LLC. was created in 1995. The purpose of Isis as testified by

Plaintiff was to service a holding company for commercial rental real estate. The building is

currently leased to American Technology Component, Inc. The ownership of Isis is 72.6% by

Steven Haines and 27.4% by Lisa Haines. The appraisals for Isis can be found at 138 "Adamy"

and 13h "Scarpone". Each appraisal valued Isis at $684,387.00. Mr. Scarpone used minority

interests and discount; however, that does not appear appropriate given that it is owned 100% by

the parties. Therefore, the value of Isis is determined to be $684,387.00.

Steven Haines' Antiaue Vehicles

Plaintiff has four antique vehicles which were appraised by Kurt Stoops of Vintage Auto

Appraisers on behalf of Defendant. The same automobiles were appraised by Guy Zaninovich

on behalf of Mr. Haines. Mr. Zaninovich testified and Mr. Stoops did not testify. According to

Mr. Zaninovich's testimony, he opined that he and Mr. Stoops were consistent on the valuation

of the 1910 Marmon Speedster, the 1912 Apperson, the 1912 Haynes Roadster, and the

191311914 Cole Touring. The parties appeared to agree that the average between the two (2)

appraisals would be appropriate. The average value for the 1910 Marmon Speedster was

$68,225.00, the 1912 Apperson average was $42,100.00, the 1912 Haynes Roadster's average

was $51,950.00, and the 1913/1914 Cole Touring's average was $16,325.00, for a total value of

$178,600.00. (See Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief, p. 57.)

Haines Family Holdings, LLC

According to Mr. Haines, the Haines Family Holdings, LLC. was developed and created

by Plaintiff for the purposes of collecting antique Indiana vehicles and to be able to gift to family

members. The ownership interests of the Haines Family Holdings, LLC. is as follows:

Steven K. Haines 28.78%

Will Haines 49.494%

Abigail Downs (Niece of Steven Haines) 7.242%

Alexandria Downs (Niece of Steven Haines) 7.242%

Chloe Downs (Niece of Steven Haines) 7.242%

TOTAL 100.00%

The Haines Family Holdings' vehicles consist of six (6) cars with the following values as

determined by the Court. The 1910 Marmon is valued at $32,500.00. This value was determined

24

based upon the testimony of Mr. Zaninovich, who said because of its partially restored condition

value is not as high as if it was fully restored. If the car was fully restored, the value would be

closer in value to Mr. Stoops valuation. The next vehicle to be valued is a 191 1 Marion Touring

vehicle. According to Mr. Zanovich, the 191 1 Marion is in need of a full restoration and

therefore he valued it substantially lower than Mr. Stoops, at a value of $28,000.00. The 191 1

Pratt was valued by Mr. Zaninovich at $52,500.00 and Mr. Stoops at $61,800.00. Mr.

Zaninovich testified that it would be reasonable to average the two (2) appraisals and the average

value would therefore be $57,150.00. The 1912 Marmon Touring was valued by Mr. Zaninovich

at $52,500.00 and Mr. Stoops at $36,800.00. Mr. Zaninovich testified that it would be

appropriate to average the two (2) appraisals and that average equals $44,650.00, although the

Court will accept Plaintiff's average of $46,900.00 to be consistent with the figures. The next

vehicle is a 1904 Haynes with a value of $25,000.00 by Mr. Zaninovich and $22,000.00 by Mr.

Stoops, with an average of $23,800.00. The last vehicle is a 1909 Sterling K. Mr. Zaninovich

testified that there was a significant difference in his and Mr. Stoops' valuation. He indicated

that he tried to reconcile this, but was unable to do so, because of serious mechanical issues and

not being fully restored, Mr. Zaninovich believed that the fair market value of the 1909 Sterling

K was $95,000.00. The Court in reviewing the briefs in this matter, finds it reasonable to accept

Plaintiffs recommendation of averaging the numbers with the exceptions as noted. Therefore,

Mr. Haines' 28.78% interest is valued at $83,439.00. Minority discount was not allowed. (See

Post Trial Brief of Plaintiff, p. 58.)

Seoarate Property

Defendant submits that various items are separate property and should not be included in

the marital estate. See Defendant's Trial Brief pages 26 through 3 1, and specifically, Exhibit G

25

of Defendant's Closing Brief which sets forth the list of assets. Defendant submits the following

assets are separate property: Skyline Common Stock; Tim Horton's, aWa Wendy's stock;

Vanguard Explorer Fund; Vanguard Prime Cap Core Fund; Vanguard Value Index Fund;

Vanguard Emerging Market Stock Index Administration; Ultra Group, Inc.; AEP; AT&T;

Comcast; Gabriel Funds; Lockheed Martin; Lucent Technologies; and American Century.

Plaintiff's position is that the assets should not be considered separate. The Plaintiff

submits that they each brought into the marriage about an equal amount of assets and that

Plaintiff managed these assets during the course of the twenty (20) year marriage. He further

submits that taxes were paid on all the assets of the parties based upon income brought in by the

Plaintiff and most particularly, income based upon the ownership and operation of ATC.

Plaintiff also submits that he brought into the marriage separate property and that property was

invested in the beginning in his purchase of ATC, which is the primary asset of the parties.

Leverich v Leverich, 340 Mich 133 (1954) defies marital property as property

accumulated through the joint efforts of the parties during the marriage. Reeves 1i Reeves, 226

Mich App 490 (1997) states that an asset is separate property of one spouse, an increase in its

value that occurred during the marriage is marital property if the increase reflects active

involvement by one of the spouses rather than just a mere accumulation and/or appreciation.

Separate property or premarital property is property owned or earned before the marriage, D a

Dd, 460 Mich 573 (1999), cert denied, 529 U.S. 1018 (2000).

Assets that are clearly separate property and agreed by Plaintiff as separate property are

Skyline valued at $31,334.00, AEP valued at $2,572.00, Comcast valued at $2,681.00, and

Lockheed Martin valued at $316.00, for a total of $36,903.00. These assets are clearly separate

property since they were brought into the marriage by Defendant and owned by the Defendant

26

prior to the marriage; Plaintiff really did not manage the accounts since they remained the same

since the beginning of the marriage and before. Payment of taxes is persuasive argument. If the

asset produced the income to pay the additional taxes, then the argument that the asset is

separate property would be stronger. The four assets noted as separate did not require any

management, the identity remained the same and taxes if any would be nominal.

However, the other assets claimed by the Defendant to be separate property do not appear

to be separate property in the opinion of the Court. Each of the properties designated as separate

have been managed actively by Mr. Haines, and clearly have changed their identity. The only

significant testimony received by the Court was testimony by Mr. Haines. Ultra was a company

that was a spinoff from Phillip Morris and Kraft Foods. Phillip Moms spun off its investments

into separate stocks, Ultra and Kraft. They were investments that Mr. Haines managed. His

testimony was extremely compelling and made clear to the Court that he only managed the

assets, made specific recommendations which the parties adopted and paid taxes. The items

specified by this Court as separate were items that can be clearly identified as wife's prior to the

marriage, required no investment management, and kept their separate identities. (See transcript

of July 24,2012, pp 121 - 137.)

Personal Pronertv

The parties have a wine collection. The value of the wine collection is $44,965.00. The

value is not contested.

Imani the Cat. Imani the Cat was purchased in 201 1. Apparently, the cat was purchased

for $1 1,000.00. Much was made about Imani the Cat, and the Court speculates that it was used

by Defendant to show a lavish lifestyle by Plaintiff. Certainly, an average person would think

that spending $1 1,000.00 for a cat is lavish. The point was well made until Defendant testified

27

in an unusual fashion at trial that some unusual shared custodial arrangement of the cat should

occur and that the cat should go wherever the minor child, Will, is. However, Will is at a

boarding school. The Court is a devoted animal lover and has a cat, which cost nothing. In my

opinion, my cat is priceless and in my husband's opinion the cat only contributes to his allergies

and has no value. Unfortunately, the law treats animals as chattel and no one submitted evidence

to establish the value of a used cat. Therefore, this Court assigns a zero value to the cat and

given that the cat has zero value, the Court leaves the decision of the fate of Imani the Cat to the

parties.

In terms of the remaining personal property (furniture, paintings, etc.) the Court used

Theobald Personal Property Appraisal found at Exhibit I of Defendant's brief in making the

following decisions.

The sum of $30,550.00 shall be assigned to property belonging to ATC. Given that the

Court has already determined the value of ATC based upon two experts as detailed above, this

value will not be assigned to either party. The value was derived as follows: First, the Court used

a value of $30,600.00 based upon the appraisal, then the Court subtracted $2,050.00 for items

that will be received by Plaintiff, which are item 5, Table, Oak with Barley twist legs; Table, Oak

arts and crafts Refectory Table, item 12; Table, Oak with carved shell cartouche, item 13; one

half of item 26 which is the geranium serigraph relative to Dr. Seuss for a total of $2050.00 to be

awarded to Plaintiff. Mrs. Haines will receive a $1000.00 for one-half of the serigraph and the

Emma Schrock oillcanvas at Item 28. Her total is $2,200.00 which reduced the total of ATC to

$28,550.00. The Court then added back in the carpet which is Item 1 at $2,000.00 in the Hearth

room for a total of $30,550.00.

The remaining items of personal property are to be divided as designated on Exhibit I of

Defendant's Brief with the following exceptions. Item 2 on page 1, Table and Chairs, Robb

Stucky, Scottsdale all custom furniture and electronics will go to Mr. Haines. This is because he

is receiving the house. The following items will also be awarded to Mr. Haines because Mrs.

Haines indicated both parties wanted the item, but she would L w Mr. Haines to have the item

and those items are as follows:

Item 6, page 1 - Vase - Ching Dynasty with a value of $750.00;

Item 10, page 1 - Painting - SLC Chinese Red Abstract with a value of $4800.00;

Item 12, page 2 - Painting - Virgin Forest Landscape painting with a value of $2,900.00;

Item 19 page 2 - Ginger Jar with cover with a value of $100.00;

Item 1, page 4 - Watercolor and ink with a value of $1,600.00;

Item 3, page 4 - Painting - Christ Risen From the Dead the value is already designated in the valuation portion of the exhibit and will not be included as additional value;

Item 5, page 4 - Toys. Trains on Hearth, cast iron toys in library. Items will be split as requested by Defendant with a value already designated in the exhibit;

Item 2, page 5 - Curio Cabinet will be received by Steve Haines with a value already attributed to Mr. Haines in the exhibit;

Item 3, page 5 - Oak Side Table with the value to be designated at $200.00 to be received by Mr. Haines;

Item 5, page 5 - Salvador Dali Wood Engraving; designated at $150.00 for each party with Will receiving said item;

Item 8, page 5 - Spools. Antique. 15 Spools on Bistro Table - this item will be split with the value already designated on the chart;

Item 9, page 5 - Autographed and Collectible Sports Memorabilia and Table Games to be split, value already designated on exhibit;

Item 13, page 6 - Oak Table, Mr. Haines to receive at a value of $150.00;

Item 10, page 7 - Furnishings, Sofas, Leather Chairs, Copper Pot, Electronics - items will be split between the parties with the values already designated on the exhibit;

Item 16, page 7 - Safe. C.B. Stiver with a value of $1,650.00 will be assigned to Mr. Haines.

Items not already considered in the value on the chart which are considered disputed

items that the Court has determined to be awarded to Mr. Haines has an additional value of

$35,250.00 which will be placed on his side of the ledger, and therefore the value attributed to

each party are as follows: Lisa Haines will receive personal property valued at $5 1,930.00. The

items are designated in the exhibit. Steven Haines will receive property in the amount of

$140,100.00 as designated in the exhibit. ATC will receive property in the amount of

$30;550.00. The figures are estimated based upon the exhibit as noted above.

After close of proofs and after the submission of the trial briefs, Plaintiff motioned the

Court to allow the record to be supplemented as it relates to taxes. Thereafter, the Court

admitted Plaintiffs 201 1 Federal Income Tax Return, Will Haines's 201 1 Federal Income Tax

Return, and Cheops 201 1 Federal Income Tax Return. Further, the Court allowed Defendant's

201 1 Federal Income Tax Return to be admitted into evidence upon submission by Plaintiff.

Additional briefmg was allowed and the briefs were submitted. Plaintiff and Defendant's

Supplemental Briefs with attachments are made part of this record and therefore are available for

appellate review if necessary. For purposes of the Court's findings, the evidence submitted at

trial was used to determine child support and alimony. At some point in time the evidence has to

be submitted. The evidence utilized was subject to cross examination and the Court also asked

questions. To reopen the issues of alimony and child support is unfair to all concerned because

of the lack of cross examination and the Court's inability to ask questions to help the finder of

fact make determinations. The Court allowed supplementation of the record for appellate review

and the tax refund issue. If the Court was to rule otherwise, there would never be an end to the

submission of evidence in this case, leaving the parties in the position of protracted litigation

with no finality.

The parties agreed upon the valuation date of ATC which produced most of the income as

of 1213 11201 0. Plaintiff argued that Defendant should not receive any benefit fiom ATC after

12/31/2010. The argument by Plaintiff is that he continues to devote his time and expertise to

run his business while Mrs. Haines devotes her time to sitting at home. However, that was the

choice of the parties prior to this divorce and throughout the marriage. Prior to determination of

this Court on the refund, it is clear that the accountant should apply the overpayment of Federal

Income Taxes. It is not as clear what to do with the overpayment of income taxes for 201 1. The

Court in reviewing the tax return determines that $272,000.00 of income tax is a marital asset to

be split equally based upon the following. First, ATC is a marital asset regardless of the fact that

it is 100% owned by the Plaintiff. The Court used conservative methodology in determining a

value of the business and the 2010 agreed-upon date was fortuitous for the Plaintiff. For

purposes of valuation of ATC, it was critical that an agreed-upon date was determined, but the

Court is free in addition to determine valuation dates on other assets based upon other dates in

time. There is no dispute that ATC is a marital asset and that Plaintiffs refund is a marital asset.

Lemmen v Lemmen, Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 279832,285241 unpublished

opinion (February 9,2010). Any prior carry overs made by the Plaintiffs accountant (accountant

used by both parties) shall remain as previously designated by the accountant except for the 201 1

overpayment of Federal Income Taxes in the amount of $272,000.00. The Court does not believe

that Plaintiff has improperly paid any income taxes, but there is no way to know whether there

31

were any previous mistakes. Therefore, Defendant's request to be indemnified for any losses for

prior taxes to the date of the Judgment of Divorce is granted. However, for the reasons stated

previously, particularly the need for finality, the Defendant shall not be granted the right to

petition this Court and reserve any issues in regards to any possible overpayment of 2012 taxes as

requested.

Attornev Fees

MCR 3.206(c)(2)(a) provides in pertinent part:

"A party who requests attorney fees and expenses must allege facts sufficient to show that (a) the party is unable to bear the expense of the action, and the other party is able to pay ..."

The Court of Appeals in the case of Mvland v Mvland, 290 Mich App 691,702 (201 0) in

relying on one of the leading cases Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184 (1993) stated the

following:

This court has interpreted this rule to require an award of attorney fees in a divorce action 'only if necessary to enable a party to prosecute or defend a suit' Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420,438; 664 NW2d 231 (2003). With respect to a party's ability to prosecute or defend a divorce action, a party "may not be required to invade her assets to satisfy attorney fees when she is relying on the same assets for her support" Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184, 189; 503 NW2d 664 (1993). Further, a party sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay attorney fees when the party's yearly income is less than the amount owed in attorney fees. Stallworth v Stallworth, 275 Mich App 282; 738 NW2d, 264 (2007).

The Defendant is not required to show egregious conduct, Mvland su~ra , and clearly,

based upon the Court's finding under the spousal support section, the Court is not going to

require Defendant to invade her assets to satisfy a portion of the attorney fees. In addition, there

is the serious issue of Plaintiff deleting or destroying potential relevant evidence. Quite frankly,

the Court was totally taken aback during trial on this issue, having formed some general

impressions previous to trial that Defendant was "gilding the lily" on the issue of discovery. The

Court agrees with the analysis by Mr. Keiser that Mr. Haines' explanation of why he deleted

items from his computer was unpersuasive. Therefore, Defendant's request for sanctions is also

appropriate. The more difficult question is the amount of sanctions and attorney fees.

m, 48 1 Mich 51 9 (2008) is helpful. The case, -, establishes that the burden of

proving the reasonableness of the request of fees rests with the party that requests them @. 528-

529). The case sets forth various factors for the Court to use in determining the amount

of the fee. The Court must start by calculating a reasonable attorney fee based upon their locality

for similar legal services and then multiply the amount by a reasonable number of hours

expended. The Court can use testimony or empirical data found in surveys or other allowable

reports. If there is a factual dispute regarding the reasonableness of the hours billed or the hourly

rate, which there is in this case, the party opposing the fees may request an evidentiary hearing.

The Court will notice the matter for evidentiary hearing; but pending said hearing will require the

parties to prepare and submit a Judgment of Divorce that incorporates all the other findings made

in this written Opinion. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the parties are required to exchange a

detailed billing statement and a summary of costs. The billing statement should include dates

and times for the services and the reasons for the service. Parties should review the case of

Elslander v Thomas Sebold & Associates. Inc., 297 Mich App 204 (2012), prior to the

evidentiary hearing.

BP Realtv and Expenses

In Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief, Plaintiff indicated that business entity BF Realty had a

value of $50,634.00. The business was not discussed by Defendant, nor did the Defendant argue

that BF Realty is separate property. If an interest in BF Realty does in fact exist, the Court orders

33

that the value of that asset be split. Defendant also asks that Plaintiff receive on his side of the

ledger "Steve's extraordinary expenditures through ATC in the amount of $613,341.00." The

Court relies on the testimony of Mr. Scarpone in regards to appropriate add backs pre

12/31/2010. In addition, Plaintiff paid all expenses while the divorce was pending and

Defendant has failed to meet his burden that these were extraordinary or unusual expenditures.

In addition, the Court has taken into consideration Defendant's ability to earn substantially more

than the argued $250,000.00 in determining child support, alimony, and the attorney fees that are

to be awarded. Therefore, the so-called expenditures will not be considered an asset.

Summaw

Attached to this opinion is an exhibit entitled "Haines v Haines Financial Summary." This

summary has listed all the assets' net value and disposition by the Court. The value of the

accounts was based upon a stipulated financial account summary provided by the parties and

received on December 12,2012 or court findings. (See attached list along with List of Exhibits.)

The value as of 9130/2012 is an appropriate date given the length of time that it took to process

this case and the previous attempts to reconcile. The parties should bear the risk of devaluation of

assets, as well as the benefit of the increased value of assets acquired and appreciated during the

course of the marriage. The disposition of the accounts was based upon what appeared to be the

most reasonable disposition of assets. The pensions were split evenly so that each party has

approximately the same amount of pension. The final determination in net value of the assets of

the party is $8,696,193.00. To equalize the estate, the Court subtracted the separate property of

$36,903.00 and divided that number by 2. Each party therefore should receive assets in the

amount of $4,329,645.00. To equalize the assets, Plaintiff is required to pay to the Defendant the

sum of $2,559,393.50. In order to accomplish this, Plaintiff shall sign a promissory note to

34

Defendant in that amount amortized over ten-year period of time to be paid monthly with a

balloon after seven years. Interest shall be 4% per mum. The note shall be secured by a pledge

of stock in ATC, ALCO, and all other business entities awarded to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall

purchase a term life insurance policy at his cost with declining value with Mrs. Haines as

irrevocable beneficiary until the note is paid in full.

Plaintiff shall prepare a Judgment of Divorce in conformity with this Court's Opinion.

The Judgment shall incorporate all standard provisions. The Judgment shall be submitted in 35

days. The evidentiary hearing on attorney fees and sanctions shall be heard on March 21,2013 at

9:30 a.m.

Date' Hon. Susan L. Dobrich (P32783) ProbateIFarnily Court Judge

cc: Atty Peter W. Smith Atty Mark A. Westrate Atty W. Jack Keiser Friend of the Court

Social workers, All Other Page 1 of 9

foll~w Ur :I I WlrnhNpw I Releore~1and~;lSIteMap search BLS.gov . , 88

........ .......... .......:. .... BTi

-* Occupational ~ n ~ ~ l o ~ ~ n e ~ ~ t Statistics jMilBON:Bel , OEB ~ F U N T ~ U mEj@] I . . i . .

BRO!4SEOES i . - Occupations[ Employment and Wages, May 2011 MSHW

21-1029 Social Workers, All Other I CES OYWVIEVI . - ........ ....... -. .... . . . _ _ _ I

OBNEWSRWES All sacla1 workers not listed separately. ! ..... ......... - ........ ! W mwE5

.- -. - ... ..... ............ CST4BLB National ~stlmatcs for this om~anon

i j .............................

ustw omflle far this amDatlon MSPUBLIran~ Geo(lra0hic~~oRe for this mclroaun .-... -....

..FF? ................ ~NTRCTOES National estimates for this occupation: i

industry profile for this occupation:&

Industries with the hlghest published emploqnient and wagesfor thls occupation are provided. For a l.jt of ail industries wlth employment lnffils occupation, see the Create CuCurmmized Tables function.

Subscribe to the OES Industries wlth the hl~liest I m B of emolovment 111 this moation:

... ................... Empiwent estimate and imean wage ertimater for this occupation:

S M C H OES

Update

....

O E S ~ P X C S . .. ... -. ...........

Industries with the highst concentration oFemployment in thls occupation:

industry

AROILVED DATA ....................... P m t l l e wage ertlmates for mls ormpatbn: M N T S & hWS .................. .:- .............. M ~ R ~ I R ~ O N FOR WPJNOENE --- TECHNIC&, ODOlMENrAnM

Employment Mean hourly Mean annual wage mm EmPloYmentLLll RSEm 1 wage 1 1

Employment Pereentof Hourly mean Annual mean I m I 2z" I wage i a I

63,110 1 1.4 56 1 $26.07 $54,220 1 0.7 Yo

Tap paying induskles for this OccumHon:

COmmUniNFood and Houtino, and Ememencq and Other Relief Services

lndiilduai and Familv Sewic~s Federal Executive Branch 1OES Desionation]

s t e Government IOES Desionationl Soda1 Admaw Omanlzatlons

2,520

8,530

10,480

9,900

780

Industw

Federal Executive Branch lOES Dedonalionl Psvchi~trir and Substance Abuse Hmmais

1.75

0.68

0.51

0.44

0.40

Employment LQ 10,480

670

$18.33

$19.59

$33.97

$23.80

$22.04

:?sf employment

0.51

0.29

$38,120 '

$40,740

$70,660

$49,510

$45,840

Hourly mean wage

$33.97

$33,46

Annual mean wane W.

$70,660

$69,600

Social Workers, AII Other Page 2 of 9

I

! i

Geographic profile fo rmis occupat ion:W i States and areaswith the Illghest published ernployme?t, locatlon quotients, and wages fnrmls occupation are provided. For a list ' o l all areas with employment In this ocaipation, see the Create Custo~nlzed Table fundion. I

i i 1

Employment of social workers, all other, by state, May 2011 :

Statm 1~1th tll~llighest employment level In this ompation:

Seedab iexceot Psvchiatric and Substag Abuse1 Hmgital~

Insurance Carriers

Insurance and Em~lovee Beneflt Funds

0.09

fa 0.20

210

El 90

$32.05

$31.85

$30.53

$66,660

$66,250

$63,510

.- .. . .. . -- - -- . .. -- -

! / : Social Workers, AIi Other Page 3 of 9 I

! Location quotient of social workers, all other, by state;MayPO11 . .

I i

stqtej wlth Ule highest mncenLraUon ofjobs and IacaUon qllotienb in thk accupauon:

I . Social Workers, All Other

Annual mean wage of social workers, all other, by state, May 201 1

Page 4 of 9

! O e 7 . m . $ ~ , m 8946.mo.w.570 0149.810.552910, 8552.G3CL.558240 MS58370.IDm S081.W.588#<0 I 1 i

I Blankreaslndioale dab nolaurllable. 1 i

j i i Top paying Stakes for thb occupation: I

i . 3

i . ,

i i i

i i I i

I i

I .!

I i i I I i

i i I i !

I

. Social Workers, Ali Other Page 5 of 9

Employment of social workers, all other, by area; May 201 1

Mehopalltan aleas with the higher* employnlent level in thls orcupallon:

- . . . -. ... . -.

Social 'Norkers, All Other Page 6 of 9

Location quotient of social workers, all other, by area, May 207.1

7 - -

. Social Workers, All Other Page 7 of 9

i j

Annual mean wage of social workers, all other; by area, May 2011 I I i

Blad.rcnbdioah lib nokarailzble.

i I

I Top paying metmpolltan areas fw thk occupation:

Nonmehpoli$n areas wltll the highest employment In this ompation:

Hourly mean Location quDtlentm Metropolitan area Annual mean

wage lZl Emplrnt Emp'oyment

perthousnd inhr

sajewlls3 aoeM pue )uau1~olow3 leuollean33o 3upaas-~)mpul. IeuolleN TTOZ new

saletuna aDeM pue~uau1~010w3 leuolleonno eaiv uelilooo.lguuoN pue uqiioooiaw IIOZ new

W!IU aoeM pue 4uaruAolOUI3 jeua!Ieonno q e ~ s TTOZ A ~ W

sajeullw anem pre ~uaw~oiou~q leuoneanno l euow i roz new

:uoaerumgi palela pue salewlsa n o raqio

'afieiane ueq eae aql ul ;ualena>d -1 s( uollednao am sqe>lpu! auo ueql ssal ~uallonb uonwol e pue 'a6erane ueql )uawAo!dwajo a~eys~aqfilq e sell uolledm2o arfl sqmlpu~ auo Llew ~ a a w 6 panonb UOI:POI v

'qep hwns papoda~ aq) WWJ paelnyeJ Awarip u a q seq a6eM lenuue 341 'paulscqnd a6eM ueaw Aunoq ueqou ,u aalaql a1aq.w suo~edn220 amqi JOJ :slnoq 080'2 p alnfiu slnoq .awlpllnJ 'punor-led,, e hq afiw ueaui Allnoq a u 6ulLldulnw Aq paleln21€3 uaaq a e q sa6eM jmuuv (z)

'sraylo~ paAoldwa-41as apnpu~ lou op saleruns3 ,Alqe.tedas umoqs lou suolledn>x, apnpul s lep~ am asne3aq slao) aqi 03 wns lou op suoljedN3o pallqap 101 s;qewiw (I)

'saoeM allauoxw lnoqearo~ .uelpauu aqt ueull aloa u ~ w slaylo.&\ 40 luaxad 0s pue uelpaw aql ueip ssa! wea saydornjo >uillad o ~ - q e u l s a a 6 e ~ allluaxad

qlos aql sl a 6 e ~ ueipaw a u 'lied slay lo^ jo luaxad uleuaJ e q31q~ ~ o l a q a 6 e ~ e 10 anlen aq1 s! qewnsa afiernali?uallad a q l

'RIB n x alqeptolumop aqi u! alqel!eAe sl 2511 qaldwo2 a u aMqe pplnold a e sam6~a6ef.1 pue l~lawho~dwa doaaql 'Qquunlo3 $0 13~s la a41 pue salqs lle pue 'seae

ue?i!od~lawuou Pue uq!lodoaaw !le 'slonas ilqsnpu! Ile ul slata(dwa rum4 pwallm aep 4 1 1 ~ pi0elmlW ale wewusa aseu

q e ~ u ~ s 3 aoeM pue ~namolowq leuoueonao ealv uqnoooaawuoN pue 'uq~ loao lp~ 'abe;~ 'Ii'uollrN [TOZ hew lnoqv

i :uol)ednno slql UI quaflonb uo!lwol pue sqoIjo uoquammum mqfi~ti aql ~IIM s m e ua~~odo~laruuo~

1 - . . . . . . . eae

_: Social Workers, All Other

List of OccuoaWon~ln SOC Code Numbel. Order

L15t of Occuoatlons In Alul,abeHcal Order

Download Mav 201l Occu~aUallal El-n~lovmontand Waae Estimates In Zlooed XL5 files

Techninl N&

Last Modified Date: March 27,2012

KECOEIMENDMIS PAGE USING: Facebod( @ Twittw &g Unkrilln

TOOLS Areas a1 a Gknca, Indusldcs al a Glance Eco~lomili Releas- Dalata5cs & Table6

CALCULATORS Ihdlalbn LnC~tion (hldi~nl Injury And lllneas

HELP Hwlp & Tulorials FAQS G105sary About BLS Conlncl US

INFO walk N w Careers 0 BLS Find Ill O M . Jobl 0urMa1lil)g Lislv Ll,,M"g a Copyngllt 1"B

RESOURCES Ifmpcaar General 1010) Bcldrjel and Pcrlormirnoe No Fear Act USA.gov Benefilsgm OisaMlilygov

Page 9 of 9

U.S. Bureau of Labor Stathlcs I Divlsion of Occupational Employment Stab'stlcs,, PS8 Sulte 2135,Z Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 www.blr.awl0ES I Telephone: 1-202.691-6569 I Sma!X2

CASS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT-FAMILY DMSION PROGNOSTICATOR 20 12

j LISA HAINES 1 STEVEN HAINES Case No: 10-242-DM I I !

Child Support Reco~nmendation

This case involves one child of the parties. Tlus calc~llation assumes that the firstchild is the oldest and the renmining children are listed by decliniilg date of birth.

In a cale~~dnr year: The first child spends 182.5 ovemigl~ts wiih the father and 182.5 overl~ights with the mother.

The average nunlber of ove~nights the children spend with each parent are: 1 I 1

Father Mother One child 182.5 182.5

General Care Using the Parental Time OffsetFormtda:

One child: Father s11011ld pay $2,183.16 per n~outh to Mother. I ! Ordinary Health Care Costs In addition to the general care, each parent is responsible for a portion of the knual Ordinary Health Cnse Cost of $345 per child.

111 this case: ' Father's monthly portion is $25.88 per child.

Mother's mo~lthly portio11 is $238 per child.

One chi1d:Father should pay $25188 to Mother. . .

Eealth Insurnnce Premium Adjustment ' . 'Illere ase no hedth insurance prelniiuns to allocate.

Total Monthly Support Amount Based on the info~~nation and assuil~ptions as to which parent is responsible for certain obligations, the total an101111t of support sho111d be follows:

ChldrnFayer Base ' OHC , CCnre I-IIP Total 1 Fatller 2,183.16 25.88 0.00 0.00 2,209.04

When 1 child is covered by the order, Father shall pay $2,209 to Mother. CI

Extraordinary Eealth Care Expense ~ i t l ~ e r should pay 90 % and mother sloilld pay 10 % of the exkaordinnry health care expenses.

Recoimnelldation prepared using the October 2008 Child S~tpport Fonnla aud 2012 tax rates. PROGNOSTICATOR 26.0 - A product of SpringfieldPublicaiions, . '

in association with the Fanlily Law Section of the State Bar ofMichigan.

This recommendation was prepared on Noven~ber 16,2012.

CASS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT-FAMIIY DIVISION PROGNOSTICATOR 2012

LISA HAINES / STEVEN HAWES Case No: 10-242-DM

Tax, Income, Expense and Adjustment Inforniation FATHEWSBAND MOTHER/WIFE

Tax Filing Status: Single Single Income Tax Exemptions Considered: 2 1

Income Tax Exemption Amount: $7,600.00 $3,800.00 Annual Tax Deduction Amount: $5,950.00 $5,950.00 Supplemental Child Tax Credit: ;$O.OO $0.00

Local Income Tax Percent: 0 % 0 %

AVERAGE WEEIUY INCOME Salary & Wages: $0.00 $797.80

Interest & Dividends: $15,936.92 $690.41 GROSS WEEIUY INCOME: $15,936.92 . $1,488.21

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME: $69,325.60 $6,473.71

AVERAGE WEEKLY EXPENSES Federal Income Tax: $5,041.30 Social Security Tax: $0.00

Medicare Tax: $0.00 Michigan Incoine Tax: $686.91

TOTAL AVERAGE WEEKLY DEDUCTIONS: $5,728.21 TOTAL AVERAGE MONTHLY DEDUCTIONS: $24,917.71

TOTALAVERAGEWEEKLYNETINCOME: $10,208.71 TOTAL AVERAGE MONTHLY NET INCOME: $44,407.89

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS Adjustment for Other Cluldrenl: $0.00

WEEI(LY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: $0.00 MONTHLY OTHER ADJUSTMGNTS: $0.00

ADJUSTED WEEKLY NET INCOME: $10,208.71 ADJUSTED MONTHLY NET NCOME: $44,407.89

Max. Reasonable Montl~ly Health Insurance Cost: Cost of Total h~sitsnl-ance Premium:

Total People Covered: Portion AllocabIe to Children in Comnion:

Reconnnendation prepared using the October 2008 Child Support Formula and 20 12 tax rates. PROGNOSTICATOR 26.0 - A product of Springfield Publications,

in association with the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

This reco&endation was prepxed on November 16,2012.

CASS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT-FAMILY DIVISION PROGNOSTICATOR 2012

LrSA HAINES 1 STEVEN HAINES Case No: 10:242-DM

Aliinony Recommendation ! I

i

Claimant: Lisa Haiues Payor: Steven Haines

Marriage Length: 20 Years Husband's Age: 48

Wife's Age: 50 Hi~sba~~d's Education Level: College Degree

Wife's Education Level: Master's Degree Weighted Mailiage Length Points: 24.5

Weighted Claunant Age Points: 9 Weighted Education Level Points: 6

Weighted Income Points: 0 Total Weigl~tedPoints: 39.5

The paties have 1 minor child. The father s110~11d pay $2,209.00 per montll in child support.

The total weighted points in this matter make this a Level Five case. I l Tile point ratings are as follows: I I LEVEL ONE (> 55 weightedpoints): There is a very strong case for spousal support. Permane~it alimony would almost always be recommended. . .,

LEVEL TWO (kom 76 to 85 points): Long tenn or permanent alin~ony is usually indicated. LEVEL THREE (fk011160 to 75 points): Some award of alimony is indicated. Long ttkln may.be appropriate near the top of the range, and short term alimony at the lower end. LEVEL FOUR (from 50 to 59 points): Short tenn aliinony is indicated. LEVEL FIVE (< 50 points): Usnally no alimony is indicated, unless other factors (health, prior standard of living) show a need for aliinony.

In some factual situations, the incoine levels of the paties will result in a reconmendation that no alinlony be awarded even ifthe the weighted points are at Level Two or higher.

This forln~~la provides a starting point fordetermining an award of alimony. It considers four of the objective factors considered in deteilnining an alinlony award. The other more subjective factors sl~ould also be reviewed to see if there is a greater or lesser need for spousal support in this specific case.

If ordered Steven Haules should pay $8,669 per month to Lisa Haines as spousal snpport. ,

1

I

Recommendation prepared using the AIimony Fonnula and 2012 tax rates. PROGNOSTICATOR 26.0 - A product of Springfield Publications,

in association with the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

This reconunendation was prepared on Nove~nher 16,2012.

1

CASS COUNTY CIRCUIT C0URT:FAMILY DMSION PROGNOSTICATOR 2012

LISA IUINES / STEVEN HADES Case No: 10-242-DM

Tax, Income, Expense and Adjustment Information FATK@R/HUSBAND MOTHER/WIFE

Tnx Filuig Status: Single Single Income Tax Exenlptions Considered: 2 1

Income Tax Exemption Anlount: $7,600.00 $3,800.00 Atninal Tax Deduction Amount: $5,950.00 $5,950.00 Suppleulental Cl~ild Tax Credit:. $0.00 $0.00

Local Incon~e Tax Percent: 0 % 0 %

AVERAGE WEEICCY INCOME Sala~y &Wages: $0.00

Interest & Dividends: $15,936.92 GROSS WEEICLY INCOME: $15,936.92

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME: $69,325.60

AVERAGE WEEIUY EXPENSES ~ede&il Income Tax: $5,041.30 Social Sec~uity Tax: $0.00

Medicare Tax: $0.00 Michigan Income Tax: $686.91

TOTAL AVERAGE WEEKLY DEDUCTIONS: $5,728.21 TOTAL AVERAGE MONTHLY DEDUCTIONS: $24,917.71

TOTAL AVERAGE WEEKLY NET INCOME: $10,208.71 $1,132.40 TOTAL AVERAGE MONTHLY NET INCOME: $44,407.89 $4,925.94

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS Adjusfinent for Other Children: $0.00 $0.0'0

WEEIUY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: $0.00 $0.00 MONTHLY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: $0.00 $0.00

ADJUSTED WEEKLY NET INCOME: $10,208.71 $1,132.40 ADJUSTED MONTHLY NET INCOME: $44,407.89 $4,925.94

Max. Reasonable Monthly Health Insurance Cost: $3,466.00 $324.00 Cost of Total Insurauce Premiurn: $0.00 $0.00

Total People Covered: 1 1 Portio~~ Allocable to Children in Co~nn?on: $0.00 $0.00

Recommendatio~l prepared uskg tl~e Alunony Fonnula and 2012 tax rates. PROGNOSTICATOR 26.0 - Aproduct of SpringfieldPublications,

in association with the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

This recomtune~~dation was prepared'on November 16,2012.

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCLJIT COURT FOR T I E COUNTY OF CASS

FAMILY DNISION 60296 ht-62, Cassopolis, MI 49031

(269) 445-4412 * , * a * * *

STEVEN K. HAR\TES, Plainriff, Case No. 2010-242 DM

VS. HON. SUSAN L. DOBRICH

LISA A. HAINES, Defendant.

Peter W. Sinith (P22999) W. Jack Keiser (P15800) PETER W. SMTTHLAW OFFICES MlLLER JOHNSON Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 423 Sycamore, Suite 102 Radisson Plaza Hotel & Suites P.O. Box 67 100 West Michigan Avenue, Suite 200 Niles, MT 49120 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (269) 683-3300 (269) 226-2950

Mark A. Westrate (P26195) WESTRATE & THOMAS Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 204 Commercial St, P.O. Box 359 Dowagiac, MI 49047 (269) 782-5144

JOINT LIST OF T m EXHIBITS

Tne following joint exhibits have been stipulated to unless otherwise noted which are included iu the aattclied Trial Notebooks:

1. Sumnary of Entities Owned by Steven Ilaines

2. Various Net Worth Statements Prepared by Steven Haines (Plaintiff objects)

3. Summary of Taxes paid During Marriage on Income from Lisa Haines' Pre-MaitaI Assets' prepared-by Eric A: Aclamy' ,. . . . .

J 4. Spreadsheet - Incollle Taxes Paid by Steve and Lisa Haines on Lisa's C2aimed"Separate Property" presented by Plaintiff's Cowsel . . . . . . . . . . . , .

5. Smnmary prepared by Etic A. Adlmy with sup~orting documents regarding Post 12/31/2010 Expenditures with supporting documentation including credit card statements, check registers, general journal entry detail and supporting invoices

I 6. Schedule of Assets and Liabilities presented by Plaintiff I

! 7. Scl~edule of Assets and Liabilities Presented by Defendant

1 8. Inventory of personal property selected by Lisa Haines

9. Speciiic BSI Discovery in Separate Defendant's Trial Exhibit Notebook (Plaintiff objects)

10. Sumn~ary of Attorney Fee Statements and Costs with supporting documentation presented by Plaintiff (Plaintiff objects)

11. Summary of Plaintiffs Attorney Fees and Costs Presented by Eric A. Adamy (Plaintiff objects)

12. Summay of Attorney Fee Statements and Costs with supporting documentation presented by Defendant (Plaintiff objects)

{- '"<, 13. BusinessNaluation Appraisal Reports as follows: ',.-I

a. American Technology Components, Inc.-Eric A. Adamy, CPNABV, ASA, CBA plaintiff objects)

b. American Teclmology Components, Inc. -James F. Scarpone, CFP, CVA, CPA

c. Alco Acquisition, Inc. -Eric A. Adamy, CPA/ABV, ASA, CBA

d. Alco Acquisition, Inc. - James F. Scarpone, CEP, CVA, CPA

e. Cheops Development Group, LLC - . Eric A. Adamy, CPA/ABV, AS& CBA , ...

piaintiff objects)

f. Cheops Development Group, LLC - James F. Scarpone, CFP, CVA, CPA

g. Isis Development Group, LLC - Eric A. Adany, CPA/ABV, ASA, CBA

h Isis Development Roup, LLC - James F. Scarpone, C R , CVA; CPA

i. Haines Family Holdings, LLC - Eric A. Adamy, CPA/ABV, AS& CBA

j. Haines Family Holdings, LLC - James F. Scarpone, CFP, CVA, CPA . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

k Appraisal Review Reports by Jeff Genzi.uk -1 . . . 14. Real E e t e Valuation/Appraisal Reports as follou~s: . ..

a 71 108 KarIson Lane, Niles, MI - Mruital Residence - Iverson C. GTove, I\/LAI, SRA (Plaintiff objects)

b. 71 108 Karlson Lane, Niles, MI - Marital Residence - - Robert Ogg

c. 71108 Karlson Lane, Niles, MI - Marital Residence - Steven W. Saute, Residential Real Estate Appraiser, Mortgage Refinance Appraisal for Old National Bank, Effective 01/05/20I 1 (Defendant objects)

15. Personal Property Valuation/Appraisal Reports as follows:

a. Antique Motor Vehicle Appraisal by Guy Zaninovicb

b. Antique Motor Vehicle Appraisal by Kurt A. Stoops

c. Personal Property Appraisal by Sharon Theobald, ASA

d. Personal Property Appraisal by Big Bear Auction Company

16. Computation of Projected Fuhrre Income - Lisa Haines presented by PlaintifPs Counsel

17. Wine Inventory

18. Jewelry Inventory presented by Defendant's counseI

19. Litigation Hold Letter Dated June 22,201 1

20. Expert Report and Supporting Documentation and Affidavit by Jmes Mmay of Elijah Technologies

21. Photos of spoliation of ESI evidence taken by Lisa Ilaines

22. E1nad.s and correspondence between Miller Johnson; Plaintiffs counsel and Barnes & Tho111burg regarding bloclcing of Subpoenas to third parties;. .letters Jo third parties and Subpoenas to Third Parties (Plaintiff objects) . . . .

23. Emails and correspondence between Miller Johnson, PlaintiFs counsel and Barnes & Thomburg regarding Subpoena issued to Ryan Rans (Plaintiff objects)

24. Discovery produced by RyanRa~ls @laintiff objects)

25. Emails and correspondence between Miller Johon , opposiug counsel and Michelle FWington regarding Subpoena compliance by Michelle Farrington (PIaintiff objects)

26. 2010 Personal Federal Income Tax Retuns Final and Draft Versions of Lisa Haines and , . Steven Haines - . . . . , . . . .

d 27. Statements, checks and deposits for the PNC Account of Steven Haines, Acct. #042915479 ti.om 01/01/2008 tb~ough 07/24/2012 produced by PNC (PIaintiff objects)

3

Check register for Account #329-781-0 for Steven and Lisa Haiues produced by Lisa Iiaiixes

Photographs of Steven K. Haines produced by Steven Haines durhg deposition kstimony in this action

Creditor docunlents sl~owing the parties' debts (home mortgage, etc.)

B&F Realty Balance Sheet - 2010; B&F Realty Profit & Loss - 2010; B&F Realty Project & Loss Comparison - 2009 aud 2010

Property Tax Records - Cass County Website - Marital Residence - Property Nos: 14- 070-020-002-20 & 14-070-020-002-10

Independent Auditors Report - Credit Suisse - 12/3 111 0

Cheops 1213 1/10 K-1 from Credit Suisse

35. Cheops Capital Account BaIance Statement fiom Credit Suisse Year Ended 1213 111 0

36. Transcript of criminal proceeding regarding Steven Haines' domestic violence charge.

37. Irrevocable Trust Agreement signed by Steven K. Haines

38. United States Treasury Refund Check payable to Will Haines dated 11/04/2011 in tbe amount of $7,744.00.

39. Surrrmary of Steven Haines Inconle prepared by Elic A. Admy

40. Department of Licensing and Re,datory Affairs, Bureau of Commercial Services Disciplinary Action Report listing Complaint No. 315708 against Robert Vernon Ogg effective March 27,2012.

41. Inventory of personal property selected by Steven I-Iaines (not yet completed).

B. Each party reserves the right to present the follo~ving potei~tid exhibits which are not included in the attached Trial Noteboolc:

i. All documents and deposition transcripts (including exhibits) produced during the course of discovery

ii. All discovery produced by PIaintiff

iii. All discovery produced by Defendant

iv. . . All discoveryproduced.by.Third..Parties

v. AU discovery produced by ESI

vi. All rebuttal exhibits as necessary.

vii. All responses by Steven Haines in response to Defendant's Expert's financial interviews and audit of Plaintiffs business entities

viii. Specific Third Party Discovery Re: Financial Accounts produced by Old National Bank, Lake City, Credit Suisse, Chase Bank, PNC Bank; Credit Suisse and First Source Bank

ix. All exhibits identified by PIailitiff and Defendant individually

A-R JOHNSON Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: J U I ~ a 2012

Dated: July-, 2012

Business ~ddress : . Radisson Plaza Hotel & Suites 100 West Michigan Avenue, Suite 200 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 226-2950

PETER SMITH LAW OFFICES Attorney for Plaintiff

BY Peter W. Smith (P22999) 423 Sycamore Street, Suite 102 Niles, MI 49120 Telephone: (269) 683-6878