Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 54: The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support.

The parties were married for over 20 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. At the divorce trial, the parties’ incomes were a source of contention. Plaintiff wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support. Defendant wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ projected 2019 incomes when calculating child and spousal support. Defendant believed that he was on track to earn less in 2019 than 2018, while plaintiff was on track to earn more. The trial court ultimately decided to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes.

Standard of Review

In a divorce case, the determination of income is a finding of fact, and this Court reviews for clear error the factual findings underlying the trial court’s rulings. Whether to award spousal support is in the trial court’s discretion, and we review the trial court’s award for an abuse of discretion. If the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous, we must then decide whether the dispositional ruling was fair and equitable in light of the facts. The trial court’s decision regarding spousal support must be affirmed unless we are firmly convinced that it was inequitable. This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly followed the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) when awarding child support.


The divorce trial in this case occurred in March of 2019, approximately three months into 2019. Rather than attempt to calculate the parties’ 2019 incomes using paystubs from 2019, the trial court chose to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes. A trial court must strictly comply with the requirements of the MCSF in calculating the parents’ support obligations unless it ‘determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate. Although the trial court did not make an explicit finding regarding MCSF 2.02(B), its decision to rely on defendant’s 2018 income alone implies that the trial court found it would be unjust or inappropriate to rely on defendant’s income from 2016 and 2017. In sum, the trial court chose to rely on defendant’s 2018 income alone rather than an average of his 2016, 2017, and 2018 income, which would have increased his support obligation.


We conclude that the trial court’s decision to use the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child-support and spousal-support obligations was not clearly erroneous. Instead, it relied on defendant’s actual 2018 income, rather than guessing at his 2019 income to calculate child support. The MCSF contemplates trial courts looking backward in time to determine a parent’s income as evidenced by the fact that the formula instructs courts to use the average of three years’ worth of income to calculate child support if a parent’s income significantly varies from year to year. Thus, what the trial court did in this case is not inconsistent with the MCSF and did not constitute the imputation of income to defendant.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have 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


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...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea 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