e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 82903
Opinion Date : 12/20/2024
e-Journal Date : 01/14/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Samuel v. Samuel
Practice Area(s) : Family Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Hood, Cameron, and Letica
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Consent judgment of divorce (JOD); Child support pursuant to the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) & the Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO); Deviations from the MCSF; MCL 552.605(2) & (3); Holmes v Holmes; Support & Parenting Time Enforcement Act (SPTEA)

Summary

The court held that the trial court adhered to MCL 552.605 in deviating from the MCSF and calculating plaintiff-ex-wife’s child support award. The trial court entered the parties’ JOD, UCSO, and an accompanying MCSF deviation addendum. Although it calculated plaintiff’s child support award under the MCSF as totaling $1,735 per month, it deviated from that figure and instead awarded her $510 per month. It found the MCSF was unjust because defendant-ex-husband provides a substantial amount of the children’s day-time care and directly contributes toward a significantly greater share of their cost than those reflected by the overnights used to calculate the offset for parental time. It noted that the UCSO requires a payment of $510. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to adhere to the SPTEA in deviating from the MCSF. “[T]he trial court adhered to MCL 552.605 in deviating from the MCSF. Although the parties could not bargain away their children’s right to child support, MCL 552.605(3) specifically permitted the trial court to enter a child support award that deviated from the MCSF based on the parties’ agreement, provided” it complied with MCL 552.605(2). It “did so by addressing in writing the child support award as determined by the MCSF, the manner in which the actual child support award deviated from that figure, the reasons why the application of the MCSF was unjust or inappropriate, and that there was no property or other support awarded in lieu of child support.” While the trial court “did not address the specific child support award on the record, the UCSO and accompanying deviation addendum set forth in writing each criterion required under MCL 552.605(2).” Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion