Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a formal change in custody and to terminate his child support obligations. The parties’ statements at the referee hearing indicate that some kind of efforts were made to modify the child support order in the interim, but none of those efforts were ever made formal. By the time of the referee hearing, defendant owed an arrearage of $21,210.99  to the State of Michigan, and he owed an arrearage to plaintiff of $11,202.95. As plaintiff concedes on appeal, at the referee hearing, she explained to the referee that she had “signed off” on one credit of $10,000.00 while defendant was living in Arkansas, and another credit of $10,000.00 “when the kids were smaller.” However, for no explained reason, the Friend of the Court’s records (and defendant’s calculated arrearage to plaintiff), only reflected one of those credits. The trial court made factual findings that plaintiff and defendant had actually agreed to two reductions in defendant’s child support arrearages in the amount of $10,000 each, but only one credit was reflected in their Friend of the Court file. The trial court reduced defendant’s arrearages by $10,000 to account for the parties’ second agreement, which left $1,202.95 owing to plaintiff. The court abated the remainder of defendant’s arrearages owed to plaintiff, reasoning that the children residing with defendant constituted “overwhelming equitable grounds.”


Generally, this Court reviews child support orders and orders modifying support for an abuse of discretion. Whether the trial court properly acted within the child support guidelines is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.


Plaintiff first argues that equity is an impermissible basis for retroactively modifying a child support obligation. This Court has clearly explained that, pursuant to MCL 552.603(2), equity is not a permissible basis for retroactively modifying child support orders. The trial court erred in abating the $1,202.95.


Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in deducting the second credit of $10,000.00, contending that she never actually granted him any such second credit. Pursuant to MCL 552.603(5), a support order may be retroactively modified by “a court approved agreement between the parties.” Plaintiff argues that there was neither an agreement nor approval by a court, as proved by the absence of any such agreement in the records of the Friend of the Court. We disagree. The  trial court did not clearly err in finding that there was an agreement. As discussed, plaintiff described to the referee having “signed off” on two separate credits of $10,000.00 each, and she later affirmatively agreed that she had given two such credits. Indeed, plaintiff recognizes as much on appeal. We are not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake in concluding that the parties agreed to two credits of $10,000.00. Thus, “court approved” means nothing more extraordinary than an agreement to which a court gives its assent. By necessary implication, the trial court gave that assent here. We are therefore unable to conclude that the trial court erred in applying the second $10,000.00 credit to retroactively modify defendant’s support order, pursuant to MCL 552.603(5).


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

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

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 law 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...

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