Kosch v. Kosch

¶1(concurring). I concur in the majority opinion in all respects, but would have preferred to remand the question of attorney fees to the trial court for a more specific review of defendant’s request in light of Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184; 503 NW2d 664 (1993), and in particular, the holding in Maakethat “[a] party may not be required to invade her assets to satisfy attorney fees when she is relying on *355the same assets for her support.” Id. at 189. While it is true that the record indicates defendant receives approximately $54,000 in alimony from plaintiff, in view of the disparity between the parties’ incomes and their standards of living, I believe it could well be the case that defendant will have to invade her property settlement assets in order to pay her attorney fees. I at least think this position is just as inferable as is the majority’s necessary inference that under the circumstances defendant will not have to use marital property received through the divorce to satisfy her legal fees.