Divorce; Calculating child support under the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF); MCL 552.605(2); Borowsky v. Borowsky; MCSF 2.02(B); Imputation of income; Spousal support; Loutts v. Loutts; Spousal-support factors; Korth v. Korth; Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(a) & (b); Reed v. Reed

The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support. However, it erred by awarding plaintiff-ex-wife attorney fees. In the parties’ judgment of divorce, the trial court relied on their 2018 incomes to calculate child and spousal support instead of their projected 2019 incomes. It also awarded plaintiff $3,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, the court rejected defendant-ex-husband’s argument that it was unfair to use the 2018 incomes as he “had changed positions at work and was no longer required to work overtime,” while plaintiff had switched from part time to fulltime work in 4/18 in addition to often working overtime. He did not provide any authority suggesting that a trial court has to “calculate the current year’s income using paystubs to determine a projected income.” It also rejected his claim that by using his 2018 income the trial court effectively imputed income to him, finding what the trial court did was not “inconsistent with the MCSF and did not constitute the imputation of income to defendant.” It further rejected his contention that the spousal-support factors weighed against an award of spousal support and that the trial court failed to address the majority of the factors, holding that “correcting a disparity in income between the parties is a proper consideration when awarding spousal support, and the award of spousal support was just and reasonable considering the circumstances of the case.” However, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court improperly awarded plaintiff attorney fees because she failed to show she was unable to bear the expense of the litigation or that he was able to afford the fees. “The trial court indicated it was awarding attorney fees due to the disparity in income between the parties,” which, alone, does not justify such an award. “Under the court rule, there must be a specific finding that plaintiff is ‘unable to bear the expense’ of litigating the divorce action to warrant an award,” as well as “a finding that defendant ‘is able to pay’ the fees.” The trial court failed to make the requisite findings. Affirmed.