Piazzon v. Piazzon

Michigan Court of Appeals

Piazzon v. Piazzon

165 N.W.2d 336, 14 Mich. App. 246, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 885

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 25, 1968

DocketDocket No. 2,834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 N.W.2d 336 (Piazzon v. Piazzon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Piazzon v. Piazzon, 165 N.W.2d 336, 14 Mich. App. 246, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 885 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal by the plaintiff controverts an alimony award and a property settlement in a divorce judgment granted June 6, 1966. Plaintiff claims the lower court erred by granting alimony in gross and in the property distribution between the discordant parties. A review of the trial judge’s opinion and the record reveals an admirable exercise of judicial discretion in an attempt to equitably divide the property and support burdens, considering relative earning capacities and needs subsequent to the divorce, despite the parties’ churlish behavior. We cannot say that we would have reached a different conclusion had we occupied the position and vantage point of the trial judge, [247]*247nor that the record discloses a manifest abuse of discretion. Billingsley v. Billingsley (1946), 315 Mich 417.

Tbe lower court’s decision is affirmed. Costs to appellee.

McG-begob, P. J., and Quinn and Letts, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This appeal by the plaintiff controverts an alimony award and a property settlement in a divorce judgment granted June 6, 1966. Plaintiff claims the lower court erred by granting alimony in gross and in the property distribution between the discordant parties. A review of the trial judge’s opinion and the record reveals an admirable exercise of judicial discretion in an attempt to equitably divide the property and support burdens, considering relative earning capacities and needs subsequent to the divorce, despite the parties’ churlish behavior. We cannot say that we would have reached a different conclusion had we occupied the position and vantage point of the trial judge, [247]*247nor that the record discloses a manifest abuse of discretion. Billingsley v. Billingsley (1946), 315 Mich 417.

Tbe lower court’s decision is affirmed. Costs to appellee.

McG-begob, P. J., and Quinn and Letts, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 336, 14 Mich. App. 246, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piazzon-v-piazzon-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack