(concurring in part and dissenting in part). While I agree with the result and reasoning in §§ i through iv of the majority opinion, I do not agree that, on remand, this case must be assigned to a different judge.

I would remand for application of the appropriate factor analysis and for findings of fact without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to present her request for disqualification. Although I recognize that the appearance of prejudice may arise from the fortuity of the original assignment of the two cases to the trial judge, and it may be appropriate for the trial judge to recuse himself, I cannot join the order directing recusal.

In this divorce case we are asked to consider the element of fault as it relates to the division of marital assets. While marital misconduct remains one of the considerations for establishing the division of property, it is only one of several relevant factors that the trial court must consider to reach an equitable division. In this case we are left with the firm conviction that the award was inequitable because disproportionate weight was ascribed to fault, and therefore we remand for a new hearing before a different judge.

I

The parties had been married for twenty-six years when the complaint for divorce was filed on May 11, 1987. At the time of trial, the plaintiff-wife was forty-two years old and the defendant-husband was forty-five years old. There is one adult child of the marriage. Throughout the marriage both parties were regularly employed, but at the time of trial the plaintiff was unemployed. Her sole income at that time consisted of temporary alimony ordered by the court while the divorce proceedings were pending. The defendant, on the *145other hand, was employed at the time of trial, earning an annual salary of approximately $41,000. The defendant earned his college degree during the marriage while the plaintiff ceased her education at age sixteen when she married the defendant.

The trial court’s findings of fact included a finding that the plaintiff’s sexual infidelity, and her desire to get out of the marriage, caused the breakdown of the marriage. The trial judge then awarded no alimony, attorney fees of $500 to the plaintiff,1 and a property division of twenty-five percent to the plaintiff and seventy-five percent to the defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the issue of alimony and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, in a divided opinion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s division of assets stating,

Although the division of assets in the instant case may appear unduly harsh, we are not convinced we would have reached a different result had we been in the trial judge’s position. . . . [Although perhaps not the division we would have chosen, given that fault or misconduct of one of the parties is a proper consideration when fashioning an equitable property settlement, ... we find no abuse of discretion . . . .[2]

This Court granted leave to appeal. 437 Mich 1036 (1991).

II

As a threshold issue, we need to clarify the *146appellate standard of review that applies to matters such as alimony and property distribution. The decision in this case was released on August 8, 1990, just one month before this Court decided Beason v Beason, 435 Mich 791; 460 NW2d 207 (1990). In Beason, we declared that the clearly erroneous standard of appellate review applies to findings of fact in a divorce case. In preserving the distinction between the fact-finding function and dispositional rulings such as the awarding of alimony and the division of property, we said, in passing, that "the court must exercise its discretion in fashioning a disposition.” Id. at 798.3

After Beason was released various panels of the Court of Appeals interpreted differently its effect on the standard of review in divorce cases. See, e.g., Reigle v Reigle, 189 Mich App 386; 474 NW2d 297 (1991) (when a decision lies in the discretion of the trial court it should be reviewed for an abuse of that discretion); Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51; 475 NW2d 394 (1991) (all orders and judgments in a divorce case should be affirmed unless the trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous); Schubring v Schubring, 190 Mich App 468; 476 NW2d 434 (1991) (review de novo of dispositional rulings remains the appropriate standard after Beason); Thames v Thames, 191 Mich App 299, 309; 477 NW2d 496 (1991) ("We will not disturb a property division unless we are convinced that we would have reached a different result”).

A long line of cases before Beason had established that equity decisions were reviewed de novo but were not reversed unless the reviewing court was convinced that it would have reached- a different result:

*147We hear and consider chancery cases de novo on the record on appeal. . . . This Court, however, is inclined to give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge in equity cases. This is primarily because the trial judge is in a better position to test the credibility of the witnesses by observing them in court and hearing them testify than is an appellate court which has no such opportunity. We do not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial judge in an equity case unless, after an examination of the entire record, we reach the conclusion we would have arrived at a different result had we been in the position of the trial judge. [Christine Bldg Co v City of Troy, 367 Mich 508, 517-518; 116 NW2d 816 (1962).]

This same standard was said to apply both to findings of fact and dispositional rulings. But, as recognized in Beason, although the standard of review in divorce cases was labeled de novo, the findings of fact were not truly considered de novo. Rather, the factual findings of the trial court were accorded substantial deference and not lightly reversed on the ground that the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the witnesses. Recognition of the superior position of the trial court in evaluating credibility was one rationale employed in Beason:

[W]e do see one clear and consistent historical theme: appellate courts have recognized the superior position of the trial court in evaluating the evidence and have hesitated to interfere with factual findings. [435 Mich 799.]

This rationale loses pertinence when the appellate court is reviewing a dispositional ruling because that task is not solely grounded in evaluating credibility. Beason recognized and preserved the distinction between findings of fact and disposi*148tional rulings. While Beason recognized that the scope of appellate review of findings of fact had never been truly de novo and that the findings had, in fact, been accorded substantial deference, the broad power to exercise discretion in dispositional rulings had not been so circumscribed. The judge’s exercise of discretion in fashioning a property division is not entirely based on the demeanor of witnesses or issues of credibility; accordingly, the reasons for great appellate deference are simply inapplicable.4 The trial court is not in a position superior to the appellate court in this area of applying conscience and reason, and it is the duty of the appellate court to reach an independent conclusion. Charlton v Charlton, 397 Mich 84, 95; 243 NW2d 261 (1976) ("The appellate court may review the trial court record, come to a different conclusion and state the reasons”).

Beason also relied on the rule that requires appellate courts to accept findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.5 In contrast, the stat*149utes dealing with the disposition of property upon divorce do not require any deference to the lower court. Indeed, the statutes each include an indication that general principles of equity must be considered.6 Because the Legislature has granted broad powers to the court to exercise discretion in fashioning equitable decrees, and because equity cases involve issues that are not governed by a clear legal standard,7 it is inappropriate to apply the formulation of clear legal error to the dispositional ruling. In Beason we did not eliminate de novo review altogether, rather we distinguished factual findings from dispositional rulings and held that ”the factual findings of a trial court in a *150divorce case are to be reviewed for clear error.” 435 Mich 805. The clear error test has always been part of the proper application of the de novo review standard, but its application is confined to the review of factual issues.8

Similarly, while a ruling that is an abuse of discretion certainly should be overturned,9 the review of dispositional rulings is not limited to a review for an abuse of discretion. Divorce actions in Michigan are still considered a type of equity suit even though Michigan no longer has separate equity courts.10 In equity cases it is not enough for the trial court to have acted in a nonarbitrary manner; it must also reach a disposition that is fair and just. As stated in Bradley Grinding Machine Corp v Bradley, 316 Mich 396, 399; 25 NW2d 520 (1947):

The decree should not be reversed or altered unless it appears that it is not in accordance with the rights of the parties.

The test for an abuse of discretion is very strict,11 *151and ofttimes elevates the standard of review to an "apparently insurmountable height.” People v Talley, 410 Mich 378, 398; 310 NW2d 809 (1981) (Levin, J., concurring). But a disposition ruling may be against the just rights of the parties without being a "perversity of will.”12 Limiting review to an abuse of discretion would have the effect of rendering the discretion virtually immune to appellate review where there is any evidence to support the ruling. This has not been the law in Michigan.13 For example, in Paul v Paul, 362 Mich 43; 106 NW2d 384 (1960), this Court modified a property division even though there was evidence to support the decision. The Court said, "[W]e have no doubt that there is evidence of 'improvements’ contributed by the husband to justify the lien awarded him by the circuit judge, provided such an award is 'equitable under all the circumstances of the case.’ ” Id. at 46. The Court then modified the award declaring that an equal division would "produce a fairer result.” Id. at 47.

To alleviate any possible confusion stemming from our prior cases, we hold here that the appellate standard of review of dispositional rulings is not limited to clear error or to abuse of discretion. The appellate court must first review the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. If the findings of fact are upheld, the *152appellate court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of those facts. But because we recognize that the dispositional ruling is an exercise of discretion and that appellate courts are often reluctant to reverse such rulings,14 we hold that the ruling should be affirmed unless the appellate court is left with the firm conviction that the division was inequitable. Kuntze v Kuntze, 351 Mich 144; 88 NW2d 608 (1958); Whittaker v Whittaker, 343 Mich 267; 72 NW2d 207 (1955).15

in

Having clarified the standard of review, we must apply that standard to this case. After the Legislature amended the divorce act16 to provide for non-fault-based grounds, some parties raised the issue *153of considering "fault,” whether in the form of domestic violence, sexual infidelity, or other misconduct, in the distribution of property upon divorce.17

This Court has not yet addressed the issue and, although other jurisdictions have resolved the question, the decisions from our sister states are of limited assistance because of differences in the statutory language. Some states, unlike Michigan, merely added nonfault grounds to the traditional fault grounds such as adultery and desertion.18 Not surprisingly, the concept of fault remains a part of the jurisprudence in some of those states.19 In contrast, the Michigan Legislature did not merely add to the existing fault grounds; therefore, it may have intended to remove the concept of fault altogether.20 The remaining provisions of the 1971 *154act, however, demonstrate that such an intent was limited. In fact, the express words of the section relating to the grounds for divorce imply that conduct, such as the marital infidelity that occurred in this case, may indeed be relevant to the granting of the divorce because there must be "evidence . . . presented in open court that there has been a breakdown in the marriage relation*155ship.” Logically, evidence of infidelity or domestic violence may be related to the breakdown of a marriage relationship; this language does not demonstrate any legislative intent to totally remove the consideration of the parties’ conduct during the marriage.

Even more significantly, the 1971 act did not amend the section pertaining to the division of property and alimony. Other states, when providing for nonfault divorce grounds, have often included amendments of the sections relating to property divisions as well. Some states amend the property division sections to expressly delineate the factors to be considered when distributing property.21 Some states, following the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, 9A ULA 157, adopt an equitable distribution statute and expressly exclude the consideration of marital misconduct.22 One state has an equitable distribution statute excluding the consideration of fault or marital misconduct "except for a consideration of the economic consequences of conduct.”23 Presumedly, fault is one factor in determining the division when the conduct at issue dissipates the value of the marital property.

Unfortunately, the Legislature in Michigan did not amend the property division section along any of these lines; in fact, the 1971 act did not amend *156the alimony, support, and property division section at all.24

The legislative intent behind the 1971 act was examined in a Court of Appeals decision which dealt with this issue soon after the no-fault divorce act was enacted in 1971. In Kretzschmar v Kretzschmar, 48. Mich App 279; 210 NW2d 352 (1973), the plaintiff in a divorce action appealed from the dismissal of his complaint. The Court’s holding concerned the plaintiff’s entitlement to a judgment of divorce. The lower court dismissed the complaint even though both parties conceded that there had been a breakdown in the marital relationship and the record demonstrated a lack of reasonable likelihood of preserving the marriage.25 The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and went on, in extensive obiter dicta, to consider whether the conduct of the parties remained a *157relevant factor for the determination of alimony and property settlement. To reach its ultimate conclusion in this regard, the Court in Kretzschmar, supra at 288, examined the legislative history of the no-fault divorce act. The Court said that "although the Michigan Legislature revised the conceptual basis for granting divorce it did not intend to modify the traditional grounds for determining custody, support, alimony, and property division.” We agree that there is no indication that the legislative purpose in providing no-fault grounds was to affect the factors relevant in awarding property divisions. See Mitchell v Mitchell, 333 Mich 441, 444; 53 NW2d 325 (1952) ("The matter of grounds for divorce is entirely distinct and separable from the question of property settlement . . .”). The Legislature’s failure to amend the property division section weighs against deducing such a legislative intent. Rather, by failing to alter the statutory provision regarding property division, the Legislature evidenced an intent to retain the traditional factors when fashioning a property settlement.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial judge must fashion the division of property under the statutory scheme and the relevant case law as they existed before the 1971 amendment of the divorce act. The Legislature is presumed to know of existing interpretations of legislation. Longstreth v Gensel, 423 Mich 675, 691; 377 NW2d 804 (1985); Smith v Detroit, 388 Mich 637, 650; 202 NW2d 300 (1972). We must presume that the Legislature knew that, in fashioning property settlements, the courts had delineated several factors to be considered, including the conduct of the parties during the marriage. Because the Legislature made the choice not to amend this provision, we must conclude that it was acquiescing in the judicial con*158struction. As further support for our deduction of legislative intent, we note that the property division section was further amended in 1983, but the Legislature did not alter the basic substance.26 It is not a proper role for this Court to determine whether it may have been preferable to eliminate the concept of fault from the equation; rather, our job is to determine whether the Legislature has, in fact, eliminated it. We conclude that it has not.

IV

Determining that fault remains one of the relevant factors in a property settlement does not fully resolve this case. One additional task is to determine the manner in which the factor should be weighed and considered.

While the Court of Appeals has invariably held that fault remains a factor, none of the cases has held that it is the only factor.27 We recognize that the conduct of the parties during the marriage may be relevant to the distribution of property, but the trial court must consider all the relevant factors and not assign disproportionate weight to any one circumstance.

It is not desirable, or feasible, for us to establish a rigid framework for applying the relevant factors. The trial court is given broad discretion in *159fashioning its rulings and there can be no strict mathematical formulations. See Hallett v Hallett, 279 Mich 246; 271 NW 748 (1937); Cartwright v Cartwright, 341 Mich 68; 67 NW2d 183 (1954). But, as we have recognized before, while the division need not be equal, it must be equitable. Christofferson v Christofferson, 363 Mich 421; 109 NW2d 848 (1961). Just as the final division may not be equal, the factors to be considered will not always be equal. Indeed, there will be many cases where some, or even most, of the factors will be irrelevant. But where any of the factors delineated in this opinion are relevant to the value of the property or to the needs of the parties, the trial court shall make specific findings of fact regarding those factors. It is hoped that this requirement will result in greater consistency and provide for more effective and meaningful appellate review.

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 Mich 418, 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 cáuse for divorce.

These general standards have been refined and expanded upon 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 the marriage, (2) contributions *160of 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 abilities 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 choose 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.

In the case at bar, a review of the record persuades us that the trial court was not considering all the relevant factors, but was fashioning the remedy solely on the basis of the plaintiff’s perceived "fault”:

In this case, the Court is going to divide the assets 75 percent to Mr. Sparks and 25 percent to Mrs. Sparks as a result of her fault causing this divorce.[28]

The trial court erred in assigning disproportionate weight to this one factor.

The court’s findings of fact were relatively truncated. We set them forth in their entirety:

The Court finds the following facts: First of all, based on the Court’s comments thus far, that the *161plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her contentions that the fault remains with the defendant. The Court is satisñed that the reason for this divorce is Mrs. Sparks’ conduct with a third person, resulting in the failing of this marriage.

The Court finds that this is a marriage of approximately 26 years. Both the plaintiff and defendant worked in the course of the marriage. Numerous assets were accumulated during the course of the marriage — an inheritance of approximately 20 to 45 thousand dollars from the death of Mrs. Sparks’ father; a house, with a net value of $20,000. There is no other credible evidence of anything more than a $64,000 fair-market value, and I assume there must be a mortgage of $44,000. The Court adopts the net value in the trial brief of the defendant.

There is also a house with a life estate to Mr. Sparks’ mother in Troy, Michigan, which this Court considers an asset of the marriage, since it’s titled in Mr. and Mrs. Sparks’ names.

Further, there is a boat, an ’82 Pontiac, respective individuals’ iras, a 401-K, profit-sharing plan and other assets, which values are not in dispute.

It’s clear from the testimony that the inheritance in whatever specific amount that was received was invested, cashed in, spent, and reinvested to a degree that the Court cannot specifically make an exact factual determination on what value is left, so the Court is going to have to arbitrarily pick a number.

The Court is satisñed that the defense has proven by a preponderance of the evidence a sexual relationship with a third party, which has resulted, basically, in this marriage failing. [29] The Court therefore will allow fault to enter into the division of the property.

There is no question, at least in the Court’s mind, of a temporary psychological difficulty on *162the part of Mrs. Sparks, but oftentimes in these cases, once the divorce is over with, people magically get well and go about their lives.

I have done some research; and as much as I want to punish some people in a divorce, I ñnd out that these appellate judges, who don’t try divorce cases, say that it’s just unfair.

The Court can’t overlook the fact that we are dealing with assets which have been accumulated during 26 years of marriage, and I really don’t care how much a man is working if the woman is working and raising kids, or taking care of a house, et cetera. To me, it doesn’t matter what numbers are. People share 50-50 in the disposition of assets when there is no fault and when the parties have some kind of equal abilities after a divorce. [Emphasis added.]

The trial court, although there was evidence on the record, made no finding regarding the age of the parties, the health of the parties,30 status in life, necessities and circumstances of the parties, the earning abilities of the. parties, or other general principles of equity. The sum total of the findings of fact related to only four factors: (1) A twenty-six year marriage, (2) a history of employment for both parties, (3) the acquisition of numerous assets during the marriage, and (4) the sexual infidelity of the plaintiff during the marriage.

The most effective appellate review obviously would result from more thorough fact finding,31 but even from these four factors, it is apparent that the trial court erred. A woman who was an effective partner through a quarter of a century, assisting in the acquisition of assets, and employed *163throughout, is entitled to a more equal disposition. The concept of fault cannot be given such a disproportionate weight. Marital misconduct is only one factor among many and should not be dispositive.

We conclude that remand is. warranted under MCR 2.517 because the trial court has failed to make findings of fact essential to a proper resolution of the legal question and because the resulting property division was inequitable.

Upon remand the court shall make additional findings of fact and weigh any finding of fault in conjunction with all the other relevant factors.

v

The plaintiff also contends that on remand the case should be assigned to a different judge. We agree. We are sensitive to the appearance of impropriety resulting from the judge’s assignment both to this case and to the divorce proceedings of the plaintiff’s reputed lover. That matter was before the same judge just one day before the Sparks case, and the defendant’s attorney referred to the testimony from the other proceedings several times. Because the judge may have been influenced by matters discussed in the previous day’s proceedings, we conclude that "the appearance of justice will be better served if another judge . . . presides . . . .” People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323, 341; 217 NW2d 22 (1974).

VI

We reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand for assignment to a different judge and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(dissenting). In 1971, on the recommendation of the Law Revision Commission,1 the divorce laws were amended to provide for the "substitution of one non-fault ground for divorce for the existing fault grounds.”2

The majority turns the clock back over twenty years in holding that fault remains "one of the relevant factors”3 for determining the division of property. Validating the introduction of evidence concerning marital fault reintroduces the evil sought to be remedied by the enactment of no-fault divorce. The construction placed by the majority on the 1971 statute4 is opposed by the overwhelming weight of authority.5_

*165I

The Law Revision Commission said that the introduction of fault as an issue in an action for divorce was a cause of delay in the courts, and that the recital of misconduct in a complaint for divorce "impedes the working out of suitable arrangements for custody of the children, visitation rights, alimony, child support and property settlement”6 and that in a fault regime "participants often are pressured to make unfair and unreasonable concessions as to child custody, alimony, child support or property division.”7

A

The goal of the Law Review Commission, eliminating fault as an issue, is expressed in the language recommended to and adopted by the Legislature: "In the complaint the plaintiff shall make no other explanation of the grounds for divorce than by the use of the statutory language.”8

The "statutory language” provides that a divorce shall be granted where "there has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony[9] have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.”10

The complaint frames the issues to be tried in a lawsuit. In barring the plaintiff from alleging any ground for divorce other than the statutory no-fault ground, the Legislature evidenced its intent *166to bar fault as an issue.11 The majority holds incongruously that fault, no longer an issue, may be considered in the division of property.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court observed:

Establishing blame for the failure of a marriage was a primary function under the prior divorce law. It was also the primary basis for criticism of that law and led to its repeal. The proponents of no-fault. divorce pointed out, and the legislature apparently agreed, that usually the conduct of both spouses contributes to the failure of a marriage, that establishing guilt and innocence is not really useful, and that the adversarial nature of fault-based divorce proceedings fosters bitterness and acrimony which are detrimental to both parties and any children involved.[12]

*167B

It makes little difference whether it is under one section of the divorce laws or another that a participant is, by introduction of fault as an issue, delayed in obtaining a divorce, or is impeded in working out suitable arrangements for property settlement, or is pressured to make unfair or unreasonable concessions concerning property division.

The legislative purpose — eliminating litigation concerning fault as a cause of delay, as an impediment to working out suitable arrangements, and as a cause of pressure to make unfair and unreasonable concessions concerning property division— is defeated by today’s decision allowing fault to be considered as a factor in determining property division.

c

If a trial judge must consider, in deciding property division, as a "factor,” that one or both of the participants, in violation of the marital vow, did not "forsake all others,” then, by the same rationale — now that fault is again a factor — the judge may also be called upon to consider, in dividing property, evidence that one party or both violated the promise to "live together in marriage,” or the promise to "love and comfort,” or the promises to *168"honor and keep” the other "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.”

The majority argues that evidence of infidelity or domestic violence may be related to the statutory ground, "breakdown in the marriage relationship,” and that the statutory language "does not demonstrate any legislative intent to totally remove the consideration of the parties’ conduct during the marriage.”13 Any grievance tending to establish the statutory ground of "breakdown in the marriage relationship” would, again, under the majority’s analysis, be relevant without regard to whether there is any issue of child custody or property division. The divorce proceeding can again become a forum for finger-pointing and ventilating grievances, and the law returns full circle to where it was immediately before the Legislature enacted the no-fault statute.

The majority’s analysis makes even "cookie crumbs” relevant. Under the majority’s construction of the 1971 no-fault statute, the judge might consider, might even be obliged to consider, in deciding the division of property — to be sure only as a "factor” — whether a party did indeed eat cookies in bed.

D

It is noteworthy that the Law Revision Commission stated that the statute it was recommending was based on the Iowa statute. The Iowa Supreme Court held that evidence of fault respecting the breakdown of a marriage is inadmissible on the issues of property settlement, alimony, or support under a statute providing for dissolution of mar*169riage upon a finding that the marriage is no longer viable.14

In another case, the court said that not only must the "guilty party” concept be eliminated as a factor, but evidence of the conduct of the parties insofar as it tends to place fault for the breakdown of the marriage on either spouse must also be rejected as a factor in awarding a property settlement or an allowance of alimony or support money.15

II

Forty-three states currently provide for no-fault divorce.16 Of these, thirteen do not allow fault of any kind to be considered when dividing marital property where a no-fault divorce is entered.17 Two states permit the consideration only of "egregious” *171fault — behavior that shocks the conscience or indicates a blatant disregard of the marital relationship, such as attempting to murder a spouse, but not sexual infidelity.18 Ten states limit judicial consideration to "economic” fault — conduct, usually postseparation, that leads to depletion of marital financial resources.19 And one state limits con*173sideration to evidence of postseparation fault.20

While eight states do permit courts to consider fault other than egregious or economic fault when dividing marital property,21 none has a statutory *174scheme similar to Michigan’s. Most22 are distinguishable because, rather than eliminating traditional fault-based grounds, these states merely added a no-fault ground and thus have not removed fault from consideration.23

*175In sum, at least twenty-five no-fault states, and one traditional fault-based state, preclude consideration of fault that constitutes a cause of the breakdown of the marital relationship in deciding on the distribution of marital property. Of these, six presently have statutory schemes similar to Michigan’s — the legislatures adopted true no-fault divorce, eliminating traditional fault-based grounds, but did not amend property distribution statutes that are silent concerning the role of fault.24

Further, in • two other no-fault states where courts had previously held, like the majority does today, that, under statutory schemes similar to Michigan’s, fault other than egregious and economic fault could be considered, the legislatures subsequently amended the statutes expressly to provide that marital fault shall not be considered in dividing property.25

Of particular interest is the large number of states that have retained fault-based grounds for divorce but nevertheless preclude fault other than egregious and economic fault from consideration when dividing marital property.26 Clearly, it is the position of a large majority of states that marital fault should not be considered when distributing property.

*176Ill

The majority stresses the failure of the Legislature, when enacting the no-fault statute, to amend the statutory provisions concerning the division of property to expressly preclude consideration of fault.27 The property division provisions, however, say nothing about fault. It probably never occurred to any legislator, certainly not to the Law Revision Commission, that it was necessary to amend the property division provisions of the statute, as well as the provisions concerning the grounds for divorce, in order to accomplish the goal of eliminating fault as an issue in a divorce action.

If that had occurred to a legislator, it may very well have seemed beyond reasonable possibility that this Court would conclude that because fault was considered by the courts in <the division of property in a pre-no-fault divorce, that judicial pronouncements in a fault regime would be thought to have survived to play a role in the division of property in a no-fault divorce. The legislator may have assumed, apparently incorrectly, that a court obliged to implement legislative intent could not so manifestly misread and fail to implement the plain, well-advertised purpose of the no-fault statute to eliminate fault as a cause of delay, as an impediment to working out suitable arrangements, and as a cause of pressure to make unfair and unreasonable concessions concerning property division._

*177IV

The conduct of the parties in the marital setting is surely relevant in deciding any issue concerning the custody of children. A judge may also properly consider that one of the parties squandered family money when deciding upon the division of what is left of family property. It defeats, however, as most courts have concluded, the legislative purpose to allow fault, including sexual infidelity, to be generally considered as a factor in the division of property.