Trial Court Applied Incorrect Standard To Child Support Modification Request

The trial court erroneously applied a change-of-circumstances standard to the Friend of the Court’s petition to modify child support, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Maranda v Alexander (Docket No. 361217), the Kent County Circuit Court affirmed a recommendation of a referee to deny the Friend of the Court’s (FOC) petition to modify the defendant’s child support. The trial court denied the petition because it found the defendant did not establish a change of circumstances to warrant modification. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court wrongly applied a change-of-circumstances standard to the request.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, vacating the trial court’s decision and remanding the case.

“Pursuant to MCL 552.517b(7), defendant is correct - because the FOC filed the petition to modify child support, no party needed to prove a substantial change in circumstances to sustain the FOC’s recalculation of the support obligation,” the Court of Appeals said. “Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied the change-of-circumstances standard.”

Judges Michelle M. Rick, Douglas B. Shapiro and Colleen A. O’Brien were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion.

Background

The plaintiff and the defendant were in a relationship from 2011-2019, were not married and had two minor children together, VJA and VAA. The parties executed a settlement agreement that resolved outstanding property issues. The Kent County trial court entered a judgment of custody, a Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO), a deviation addendum, and a parenting-time agreement. The parties agreed to share joint legal custody of the minor children, with the plaintiff having primary physical custody.

When VJA started kindergarten, the defendant filed a request with the FOC for a review of his child-support obligation, asserting that his overnights with the children had increased. As a result, the FOC filed a petition to modify child support. The FOC calculated the defendant’s child support at $477/month. The revised child-support order listed $0 as child support, instead of $477.

The plaintiff filed an objection to the support modification. As a result, the FOC filed a petition for support modification and notice of hearing pursuant to MCL 552.517(5) and MCL 552.517b(4). The plaintiff then filed a response in opposition to the petition for modification. According to the plaintiff, the parties had negotiated a detailed settlement agreement and, based on the agreement, the defendant agreed to a child-support obligation of $913/month (subject to the UCSO), which granted the defendant a credit of $32,904 against his future child-support obligation effective March 1, 2021. The plaintiff refuted the assertion that there had been a change of circumstances and requested the petition be denied, and that she be granted reasonable costs and attorney fees.

At an FOC support modification hearing before a referee, the plaintiff argued the defendant had not shown a change in circumstances that warranted the support modification. The plaintiff maintained the defendant’s justification for the modification was already accounted for in the parties’ settlement agreement, which specifically addressed VJA starting kindergarten. The referee acknowledged that 1) the settlement agreement stated that parenting time would change when VJA started kindergarten and 2) he did not see how there was a change of circumstances when this change was contemplated by the agreement.

Thereafter, the defendant filed an objection to the referee’s recommendation and a notice of hearing. He claimed the referee made a legally incorrect determination by denying the child-support modification based on his finding of no change of circumstances. The defendant argued the motion to modify support was not filed as a motion by a party under MCL 552.517b(8), which would require the court to find a change in circumstances. Instead, he asserted the motion was filed by the FOC pursuant to MCL 552.517b, which says: “The court shall not require proof of a substantial change in circumstances to modify a child support order when support is adjusted under section 17(1).” Therefore, the defendant argued, the referee committed clear legal error in denying the modification of support.

The trial court, without conducting a hearing, signed an order affirming the referee’s recommended order. The trial court acknowledged the support review was initiated by the FOC and not the defendant, and therefore did not require proof of a substantial change of circumstances pursuant to MCL 552.517b(7). Despite this, the trial court concluded that the basis for the defendant’s objection was erroneous. According to the trial court, it was discussed at the referee hearing that the defendant requested a support review and his attorney agreed, which suggested that the defendant - not the FOC - initiated the support review.

The defendant appealed.

‘Legally Incorrect’

The Court of Appeals began its analysis by explaining that MCL 552.517b(1) (Friend of the Court Act) governs the modification of child-support orders and noted there are two ways to file a request to modify child support.

“The first way is for a party to file a motion directly with the court,” the Court of Appeals said. “When a party files a motion with the court, MCL 552.517b(8) applies …. The second way that a request for modification of child support can be brought before the court is by the FOC initiating proceedings.”

Here, “[n]either the lower court record nor the Kent County register of actions shows that defendant moved the trial court for a modification of his child support obligation,” the Court of Appeals said. “Without a motion filed by a party, MCL 552.517b(8) has no application in this matter. The request for modification of child support was before the trial court via the second path. Defendant filed a written request with the FOC for a review of his child support obligation.”

According to the Court of Appeals, the FOC initiated the proceeding to review support when it filed the petition to modify support. “The FOC may initiate a proceeding to review support ‘by sending a notice to the parties. The notice shall request information sufficient to allow the [FOC] to review support, state the date the information is due, and advise the parties concerning how the review will be conducted.’ … This is the procedure that the FOC followed.”

The referee then rejected the petition for support modification and granted the plaintiff’s objection, reasoning the defendant did not demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, the Court of Appeals observed. The trial court then “signed off” on the referee’s order and the defendant filed an objection to the order. “The trial court based its review entirely upon the record of the previous court hearing, without further argument by the parties, and affirmed the referee’s order …,” the appeals court said.

“However, … defendant never moved the trial court for a modification of his child support obligation - the FOC filed the petition in this matter,” the Court of Appeals said, noting MCL 552.517b(7) “expressly provides that ‘[t]he court shall not require proof of a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support when support is adjusted under [MCL 552.517(1)].’”

Therefore, the referee’s conclusion the defendant had to establish a change of circumstances was “legally incorrect,” the Court of Appeals held. “Likewise, the trial court’s order, which adopted the referee’s order, was legally incorrect. In short, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied the change-of-circumstances standard. As a result, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.”