MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 96: The trial court did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

The plaintiff and defendant were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce entered in Virginia. The Virginia court granted defendant $2,000 in monthly spousal support until the death of either party or until defendant cohabited with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for a period of one year or more.

Out-of-State Spousal-Support Order

During the pendency of the divorce, defendant moved to Michigan and started dating B. Plaintiff registered the out-of-state spousal-support order in Michigan and moved in the Michigan Court to terminate spousal support because defendant cohabited with B for a period over a year or more.

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

Michigan has adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

(1) A support order or income-withholding order issued in another state, or a foreign support order is registered when the order is filed in the registering tribunal of this state.

(2) A registered support order issued in another state, or a foreign country is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a tribunal of this state shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered support order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction.

Trial Court

The trial court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state spousal-support order. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to terminate spousal support. The trial court correctly determined that it did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

Family Law & Divorce in Michigan

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes.

Our firm is committed to helping you find resolutions to all your family law needs, allowing you to move on with your life in a positive way.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: DHHS filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over the child.

At the jurisdictional trial, H admitted that she had a substance abuse addiction that somewhat affected her ability to parent her children. The trial court ordered that CKM would remain with M until the custody hearing in a few months.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 78: Mother and father were both unable to adequately parent the children.

Father and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence, and they both abused substances.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 93: Parents’ relationship had become so bitter court determined it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody.

The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established that a change of custody was in AH’s best interests, noting the parties were unable or unwilling to work together to reach an agreement on AH’s education and medical treatment.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 21: Plaintiff file a motion to enforcement the judgment of divorce.

The referee recommended that the trial court grant plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the judgment and require the parties to comply with its provisions and further recommended that plaintiff’s request for attorney fees be preserved and awarded should plaintiff have to return to court.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 76: Defendant had not exercised his parenting time with the children to warrant the award of any child support amount.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and child support. Plaintiff characterized the failed parenting-time arrangement as newly discovered evidence that negated her child support obligation.

DIVORCE 75: The trial court agreed that the long morning commute on school days satisfied the threshold burden for reconsidering custody.

The court expressed concern regarding plaintiff’s failure to appreciate how her actions left the children in a position of having to keep secrets from defendant, caused them uncertainty about their future schooling, and made them feel guilty for telling defendant the truth.

DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.

Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions.

DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.

The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration.

DIVORCE 72: Defendant asserts the trial court failed to acknowledge the seven-day rule.

MCR 2.602(B)(3), the so-called seven-day rule, allows a party to serve a copy of the proposed judgment or order on the other parties, with a notice to them that it will be submitted to the court for signing if no written objections to its accuracy or completeness are filed with the court clerk within 7 days after service of the notice.