If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MANDY PECHER, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v No. 361496 Midland Circuit Court JOSEF GREGOR HABSCHEID, LC No. 2019-006266-DM Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SHAPIRO and REDFORD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Mandy Pecher, appeals as of right the judgment of divorce entered by the trial court. Defendant, Josef Habscheid, cross-appeals the same order. For the reasons stated in this report, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings related to the distribution of the actually received tax refunds and to the calculation of child support. I. BASIC FACTS The parties married on December 27, 1999 in the Federal Republic of Germany. During the marriage, Pecher obtained her German law license, the parties immigrated to the United States, and Pecher was eventually admitted to the Michigan bar. With Habscheid’s assistance, Pecher began a law practice with offices in Michigan and Germany. Habscheid also started his own internet-based marketing business. Eventually that business was dissolved and he formed additional internet-based businesses. In 2006, the parties’ first child was born. Their second child was born in 2008. Eventually, the marriage relationship began to deteriorate. The parties had disputes over financial issues and child rearing. There were also accusations of domestic violence. Pecher eventually contacted a divorce lawyer in 2019. She planned to file for divorce after the parties and their children returned from their annual summer trip to Germany. Before the complaint for divorce was filed, however, Habscheid physically assaulted her. Thereafter, she filed for divorce in May 2019. One of the primary issues during the lower court proceedings was related to the physical and legal custody of the children; however, neither party is appealing the court’s decision to award them joint legal and physical custody. Rather, the issues on appeal relate almost exclusively to the -1- distribution of the marital estate. During the marriage, the parties acquired two parcels of real property: the marital home and an office building. They entered into a partial property settlement during the divorce proceedings that awarded the house to Pecher and the office building to Habscheid, but they could not agree on the value of either parcel. The parties also each had brokerage accounts, personal bank accounts in the United States and in Germany, business bank accounts in the United States and Germany, and retirement accounts in the United States and in Germany. Other marital assets included Pecher’s law practice and Habscheid’s internet-based marketing businesses. With regard to the property division, Pecher argued that, based upon Habscheid’s fault leading to the breakdown of the marriage, it would be fair and equitable to split the property 55/45 in her favor. Habscheid generally denied fault and argued that the assets should be split 50/50. The parties did not agree on the value of many of the assets. Relevant to the issues raised on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals