Now Accepting New Clients!


Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in February 2016. The divorce judgment, entered in February 2016, required plaintiff to pay defendant $3,500 per month in spousal support until her death, remarriage, or further order of the court. The judgment additionally indicated that “[s]pousal support and any provision of spousal support are modifiable, except that, in the event Plaintiff receives Inheritance, this shall not be a change of circumstances or proper cause for Defendant to petition the court to increase spousal support.” Under the terms of the judgment of divorce, either party could petition the court for modification of spousal support when defendant reached the age of 62, notwithstanding anything in the judgment to the contrary. In December 2017, plaintiff moved in the trial court to modify his spousal support obligation because of the change in his income due to his companies going out of business. At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff argued that his income had decreased significantly and that he could no longer afford to make the full monthly payment of spousal support. Defendant responded by arguing that the financial instability of plaintiff’s companies was known to plaintiff at the time of divorce; therefore, the inevitable collapse of the companies did not and could not constitute a change of circumstances. The trial court concluded that there had been no change of circumstances warranting modification of support because at the time of the divorce, plaintiff had known about the dire economic situation that his businesses were in and the possibility of liquidation.


Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that no change of circumstances had occurred and denied his motion for modification of spousal support on the sole basis of its determination that plaintiff knew that his businesses were failing when the divorce judgment was entered. This Court reviews the trial court's factual findings relating to the award or modification of spousal support for clear error. There must be an evaluation of the circumstances as they exist at the time modification is sought, as compared to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time the divorce judgment was entered. Again, the trial court found that, at the time of the divorce, plaintiff had known that his companies were financially unstable and would have to be liquidated. Plaintiff testified that he did not believe when settling the case that he would be able to pay $3,500 a month until defendant reached age 62. Plaintiff also testified that he insisted on inclusion of the modification provision so that the spousal support amount could be adjusted if he were not able to pay in the future. He was not asked, and did not testify, about how long he anticipated he could meet the $3,500 monthly obligation. Nevertheless, the trial court viewed as dispositive plaintiff’s concession that he knew at the time of the divorce that he would have to invoke the modification provision at some point before defendant reached age 62. The trial court indicated that having this belief and still signing the divorce judgment bordered on fraud on plaintiff’s part. This accusation was not deserved or appropriate. The record reflected that defendant was also aware of the financial difficulties of the businesses at the time of mediation, yet she agreed to the inclusion of a modification provision with respect to spousal support. Plaintiff’s belief that the modification provision would have to be employed at some point in the future did not eliminate his ability to rely on it once a change of circumstances actually occurred. Additionally, the fact is that the companies had not yet been dissolved when the divorce judgment was entered; consequently, their subsequent dissolution was indeed a new fact and constituted a change of circumstances. Furthermore, the trial court should have considered whether plaintiff’s financial situation deteriorated beyond the extent that he expected when he signed the divorce judgment.


We hold that the evidence indisputably established the presence of new facts and a change of circumstances when comparing the facts and circumstances as they existed at the time of divorce to the facts and circumstances as they existed when plaintiff moved to modify his spousal support obligation. The threshold having been satisfied, trial court must now determine an amount of spousal support that is fair and equitable under the circumstances.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have spousal support issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000


5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000