Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 62: The court held that the trial court erred by imputing income to Defendant and increasing the amount of child support he pays to Plaintiff.

The parties have two children, and in 2012 an order was entered requiring Defendant to pay $460 in monthly child support to Plaintiff. In 2018 and early 2019, there was a flurry of friend of the court (FOC) investigations, referee hearings and recommendations, objections to recommendations, and trial court filings and hearings all with respect to setting the proper amount of child support. Ultimately, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay $500 per month in child support, which the court based in part on imputing income to Defendant, who worked as a contractor installing carpets. In its ruling from the bench, the trial court stated that it was “imputing a normative hourly wage for a carpet layer believing that Defendant at least has the ability to earn that amount either through his own business or as an employee” and that “it is fair and reasonable [to do so] in light of the historical context of the case.” The trial court never explicitly indicated the dollar amount that it was imputing to Defendant, but it appears that it may have been relying on the FOC’s earlier determination that a carpet installer could make $12.08 an hour, although the evidentiary basis for this figure is unclear.


Generally, child support orders, including orders modifying child support, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. This Court also reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's discretionary rulings that are allowed by statute or the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF), which would encompass a decision to impute income. However, whether the trial court properly applied the MCSF presents a question of law that we review de novo. 


A  trial court must use the formula established by the Friend of the Court Bureau when determining child support, unless. . . the formula would be unjust or inappropriate based on the facts of the case.”  Under the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF), the objective in determining the income of a parent is to accurately establish the amount of money a parent has available for support.  The MCSF authorizes a court to exercise its discretion to impute income to a parent, which typically occurs when there is a voluntary reduction of income or a voluntary unexercised ability to earn income.  When a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or has an unexercised ability to earn, income includes the potential income that parent could earn, subject to that parent’s actual ability.  2017 MCSF 2.01(G)(2) provides: Use relevant factors both to determine whether the parent in question has an actual ability to earn and a reasonable likelihood of earning the potential income. “These factors generally ensure that adequate fact-finding supports the conclusion that the parent to whom income is imputed has an actual ability and likelihood of earning the imputed income.” Moreover, 2017 MCSF 2.01(G)(4) provides: Imputing an income to a parent to determine a support obligation by using any of the following violates case law and does not comply with this section. . . . . (a) Inferring based on generalized assumptions that parents should be earning an income based on a standardized calculation (such as minimum wage and full time employment, median income, etc.), rather than an individual's actual ability and likelihood. (b) Absent any information or indication concerning a parent’s ability, assuming that an individual has an unexercised ability to earn an income. (c) Failing to articulate information about how each factor in §2.01(G)(2) applies to a parent having the actual ability and a reasonable likelihood of earning the imputed potential income, or failing to state that a specific factor does not apply.


The trial court referred to the “historical context of the case” when it imputed income and modified child support. We, however, cannot ascertain what the court meant by the reference, and it did not connect the reference to the imputation factors. There was a wholesale failure to comply with the MCSF, and the trial court did not indicate the evidentiary basis for the “normative hourly wage.” Indeed, the court did not even expressly identify the dollar amount that constituted the purported “normative hourly wage.” Under these circumstances, we are compelled to reverse the court’s child support order and remand for compliance with the imputation provisions in the MCSF.


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