The parties are Russian immigrants who were married in 1988 and came to the United States a few years later. They have one adult son. In 2000, plaintiff Georgii Loutts (referred to as George) started QPhotonics, a business that buys, sells, imports, and exports light emitting diodes and laser diodes. Plaintiff has a Ph.D in Materials Science earned in 1990 from General Physics Institute in Moscow, and he worked as a physics professor at Norfolk State University in Virginia until the parties moved to Ann Arbor in 2007. Defendant has a Ph.D in International Relations, earned in 2004 from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, and a Master's degree in Economics from Moscow State University in Moscow. Defendant had earned \(\$ 14,000\) a year as an adjunct professor at Old Dominion, and she was hired as a bookkeeper/accountant for QPhotonics at a salary of \(\$ 2,000\) a month after the parties moved to Ann Arbor. In 2008, near the time plaintiff filed for divorce, defendant was fired from the QPhotonics job. Following the judgment of divorce, defendant appealed in this Court, which remanded to the trial court. Nine months after this Court's decision to remand, defendant filed in the trial court a "Motion to Recalculate Spousal Support, Modify Spousal Support, and Extend It. ..." Defendant argued that her health had deteriorated substantially. Specifically, she alleged that she suffered from bleeding stomach ulcers that led to hospitalization on three occasions, the first occurring in March 2012. Nevertheless, defendant asserted that she continued to look for work. However, she alleged that she was unable to obtain suitable employment because she was overqualified for the few jobs that existed in her geographical area, and because Michigan's declining economy made it nearly impossible to find work. The trial court stated that rehabilitative spousal support had been ordered at \$1,510 a month retroactive to April 23, 2009, and that it terminated on April 23, 2013. Despite defendant's claim that her health problems began before September 2012, the trial court noted that she waited until June 14,2013 , to request modification and extension of her spousal support. The trial court noted that the spousal support terminated before the request to modify and extend was made, despite the fact that the alleged change of circumstance occurred approximately one year before the termination. Accordingly, the trial court held that any request for a modification or extension of spousal support must occur before the termination of the duty to pay. The trial court acknowledged that MCL 552.28 authorizes the modification of alimony on a showing of changed circumstances, but noted that defendant's reading of the rule was unreasonable because it would allow a party to "come back five, ten or even 20 years later to request a modification of spousal support because of a 'change of circumstance.'" Therefore, the trial court denied defendant's request to modify and extend spousal support. The trial court did, however, recalculate the spousal support using \(\$ 34,000\) as defendant's imputed income. This increased defendant's monthly spousal support to \(\$ 1,790\), for a total of \(\$ 85,920\) over four years, which was \(\$ 13,440\) more than the original award.....

Questions:

1. What was the trial court's position with regard to when a motion to modify a spousal support award must be brought?
2. Why did the appeals court reverse the trial court's ruling with regard to when a motion to modify can be brought?
3. What did the court decide with regard to whether or not the wife was entitled to an extension of the support award?
4. Why did the appeals court conclude that the trial court had correctly excluded the value of OPhotonics for the purpose of determining spousal support?