CHILD CUSTODY Presented By Terry Bankert Flint Family Law (810) 235-1970

HOW WILL A COURT MAKE A CHILD CUSTODY DECISION CONCERNING YOUR CHILDREN . Presented here by Flint Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert (810)-235-1970,

www.AttorneyBankert.com

 ANALYSIS 

“Before any decision as to the custody of a child is made, the court must determine whether an established custodial environment exists. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 197; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).”

 “The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).

 The trial court “shall not . . . issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).

[Source. E-journal UnPublished Michigan Court of Appeals, 9-11-02018 NO.341025] 

“ Here, the trial court determined that an established custodial environment existed with plaintiff and defendant does not challenge that finding on appeal. “

“Therefore, going forward, defendant had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that modification of the established custodial environment was in the children’s best interests.”

 “To determine the best interests of the children in child custody cases, a trial court must consider all the factors delineated in [MCL 722.23] applying the proper burden of proof.” Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9; 634 NW2d 363 (2001).”

“ A trial court’s findings with regard to each factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Berger, 277 Mich App at 705.”

 “This Court will defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations, and the trial court has discretion to accord differing weight to the best-interest factors.” Id. -3- MCL 722.23 cites 12 factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court to decide a child’s best interests.”

“ (a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

 (b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any. 

(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.

 (d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

 (e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes. (f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.

 (g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.

 (h) The home, school, and community record of the child. 

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

 (j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents. A court may not consider negatively for the purposes of this factor any reasonable action taken by a parent to protect a child or that parent from sexual assault or domestic violence by the child's other parent. 

(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child. (l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. [MCL 722.23].”

If you have additional questions feel free to make a no cost appointment. Terry Bankert Family Law Attorney Flint and Genesee County  (810) 235-1970)

Sphere: Related Content

CHANGE IN CUSTODY BY TERRY BANKERT 235-1970

DID YOU KNOW.

MCL 722.27(1)(c) provides that in a custody dispute, a trial court, for the best interests of the child at the center of the dispute, may “modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances.” 

[Principle source e-journal #71713, Unpublished 11/14/19.No.349021. ]

But the court is not permitted to “modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).

“These initial steps to changing custody— finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (quotation marks omitted). 

The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the moving party has established proper cause or a change of circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 508-509.

In McRoberts v Ferguson, 322 Mich App 125, 131-132; 910 NW2d 721 (2017), this Court explained: Proper cause means one or more appropriate grounds that have or could have a significant effect on the child’s life to the extent that a reevaluation of the child’s custodial situation should be undertaken. 

In order to establish a change of circumstances, a movant must prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have materially changed.

To constitute a change of circumstances under MCL 722.27(1)(c), the evidence must demonstrate something more than the normal life changes (both good and bad) that occur during the life of a child, and there must be at least some evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly have an effect on the child. [Citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted.] 

With respect to the issue of “proper cause,” the criteria outlined in the statutory best

interest factors, MCL 722.23, “should be relied on by a trial court in deciding if a particular fact raised by a party is a ‘proper’ or ‘appropriate’ ground to revisit custody orders.” Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 512. 

In regard to “change of circumstances,” the relevance of facts presented should also “be[] gauged by the statutory best interest factors.” Id. at 514. “Although the threshold consideration of whether there was proper cause or a change of circumstances might be fact-intensive, the court need not necessarily conduct an evidentiary hearing on the topic.” Corporan, 282 Mich App at 605. 

In Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 512, this Court, addressing the threshold issue, observed: Obviously, trial courts must make this factual determination case by case. Although these decisions will be based on the facts particular to each case, we do not suggest that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve this initial question. 

Often times, the facts alleged to constitute proper cause or a change of circumstances will be undisputed, or the court can accept as true the facts allegedly comprising proper cause or a change of circumstances, and then decide if they are legally sufficient to satisfy the standard.

 MCR 3.210(C)(8) provides: In deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary with regard to a postjudgment motion to change custody, the court must determine, by requiring an offer of proof or otherwise, whether there are contested factual issues that must be resolved in order for the court to make an informed decision on the motion.

 It is clear to us, and was effectively accepted by the trial court, that if the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s motion to modify custody are true, they would easily establish a change of circumstances and proper cause for purposes of revisiting the issue of custody under the statutory best-interest factors.

 But the trial court found it problematic that plaintiff had not submitted any statements, affidavits, reports, or other documentary evidence to support the allegations, let alone evidence that was current and relevant. 

The motion to modify custody was not verified, nor did plaintiff supply her own affidavit. MCR 3.210(C)(8) allowed the trial court to require “an offer of proof or otherwise” in relation to deciding whether to order an evidentiary hearing.

Under the circumstances of the case and given the remarks made by the trial court when ruling on the motion, the court’s hesitation and resistance at giving any weight to the allegations in plaintiff’s motion was plainly driven by the four CPS investigations instigated by plaintiff that resulted in determinations that allegations of abuse by defendant could not be substantiated.

The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters.

 The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.

 Indeed, the record and the CPS history support the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to modify custody simply on the-1970 basis that plaintiff did not provide supporting documentation on the threshold issue of change of circumstances or proper cause."

Presented here by Terry Bankert Flint Divorce Attorney 810-235-1970 FlintFamilyLaw.com

Sphere: Related Content

CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION. ATTORNEY BANKERT

MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

In this economically hard time parents may need to modify their child support. Sometimes the original order called for no child support by agreement of the parties. 

www.attorneybankert.com

“ While it is true that a court can generally only modify orders for child support upon a showing of a change in circumstances justifying the modification, see MCL 552.17; Aussie v Aussie, 182 Mich App 454, 463; 452 NW2d 859 (1990), “[w]hen a court order does not provide for child support, such maintenance may later be provided by the court and does not depend upon a change of circumstances,” Johns v Johns, 178 Mich App 101, 106; 443 NW2d 446 (1989).”

“When  properly motioned for a change in child support  the Court may deny the motion. The question then is  has “...trial court correctly decided that it should not modify its previous child support order and that the parties should be held to their agreement that defendant not pay child support. MCL 552.605(3) states that a court is not prohibited “from entering a child support order that is agreed to by the parties and that deviates from the child support formula, if the requirements of subsection (2) are met.” (Emphasis added.)”

“ MCL 552.605(2) states: (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula developed by the state friend of the court bureau as required in section 19 of the friend of the court act, MCL 552.519.”

“ The court may enter an order that deviates from the formula if the court determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets forth in writing or on the record all of the following:

 (a) The child support amount determined by application of the child support formula.

 (b) How the child support order deviates from the child support formula. 

(c) The value of property or other support awarded instead of the payment of child support, if applicable.

 (d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the case.”

“In Burba v Burba, 461 Mich 637, 644; 610 NW2d 873 (2000), our Supreme Court held that “the criteria [in MCL 552.605(2)(a)-(d)] for deviating from the formula are mandatory.” 4 The Burba Court emphasized that “[t]he importance the Legislature attached to courts carefully articulating these factors when deviating from the formula cannot be underestimated, for the Legislature prescribed their use when courts deviate from the formula in no less than eight different sections of the Michigan Compiled Laws.” Id. “To impress upon the courts the gravity of deviating from the formula, the Legislature has required them to meticulously set forth these factors when deviating.” Id. at 645-646. “

“Thus, as required by MCL 552.605(2), when deviating from the formula, the trial court fulfills its statutory duty only when the court has articulated its rationale in accordance with subsection 2(a) through (d).” Peterson, 272 Mich App at 517. “ [Source and Unpoublished Michigan Court of Appeals,11/14/19, case e-journal, #71700 Ncheugium v Tegadjourfrom Saginaw Circuit Court.]

5-1970

If you have additional questions about Divorce, child support or other Family Court Issues Please call Terry R. Bankert, Flint and Genesee County Attorney, 810-235-1970

Sphere: Related Content

CELEBRITY WOMEN WHO PAY GAL-IMONY by Terry Bankert Flint Divorce Attorney 810-235-1970

GAL-IMONY CELEBRITY WOMEN WHO PAY SUPPORT.[3]

Thank You Gloria Steinamn.

Halle Berry’s case and others mentioned here, Madonna  , Kirstie Alley and Britney Spears are not Michigan cases or from #Flint.

Genesee Flint Michigan law of spousal support is found here using the celebrity cases as a backdrop.

Halle Berry falls in line with a growing number of women who pay child support.[3]

"The law is gender neutral and support is the right of the child not the parent," said Jonathan Wolfe, an attorney and partner with Skoloff & Wolfe. "If you are the higher wage earner, man or woman, be prepared to pay."[4]

IN MICHIGAN,The court may award spousal support as is just and reasonable if the property award is insufficient for the suitable support of either party and any children of the marriage of whom the party has custody. The court must consider “the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case.” MCL 552.23(1).[5]

A 2013 Pew report found that women are the sole or primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children under 18. [2]

Halle Berry  is now a ranking member of an exclusive club in Hollywood: celebrity women who've had to pay their exes after their split.[3]

More than half of divorce lawyers surveyed by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers cited an increase in the number of mothers assigned to make child support payments in the past five years.[4]

The long-lived child support battle between Halle Berry and ex-lover, Gabriel Aubrey, appears to be over—for now at least.[1]

According to People, the Academy Award-winning actress has been ordered to pay Gabriel $16,000 per month in child support for their daughter, Nahla, until she either turns 19 years old or finishes high school. That’s a pretty long time considering that Nahla is only six.[1]

The Oscar-winner will fork over $200,000 per year plus tuition money for the ex-couple’s six-year-old daughter Nahla. Berry must also make a retroactive payment of $115,000 and another $300,000 to Aubry’s attorneys to cover their fees.[2]

IN MICHIGAN, Factors to be considered  in awarding spousal support include the following:

• Past relations and conduct of the parties. How the parties conducted the marriage as well as fault in the breakdown of the marriage. Fault is only one factor and should not be assigned disproportionate weight.
• Length of the marriage. A long-term marriage is especially relevant where one spouse has no career or marketable skills and his or her standard of living may be reduced because of the divorce.
• Ability of the parties to work.
• Source of and amount of property awarded to the parties.The focus is on the income-earning potential of the assets rather than their value; a spouse is not required to dissipate property awarded to meet daily needs where spousal support can be available.
• Ages of the parties.
• Ability of the parties to pay spousal support. Sources considered in determining the ability to pay include earnings, pension plans, unemployment compensation, tax refunds, and Social Security benefits. Ability to pay includes the payer spouse’s unexercised ability to earn if income is voluntarily reduced to avoid paying spousal support. Factors relevant to the ability to pay include (1) the parties’ employment histories, (2) reasons for any termination of employment, (3) work opportunities available, (4) diligence in trying to find employment, and (5) availability of employment.
• Present situation of the parties.
• Needs of the parties.
• Health of the parties. The parties’ health is relevant to the ability to work and to the personal needs of the spouse seeking support.
• Prior standard of living of the parties.
• Whether either party is responsible for the support of others.
• General principles of equity.

The court must make findings on each factor relevant to the claim before it.[5]

Berry and Aubry have been locked in a bitter custody battle over their daughter, Nahla, since 2012, the same year a judge blocked the actress from moving with their daughter to France.[3]

Halle Berry’s... shocking ruling was delivered in a Los Angeles court room on May 30. ... Halle has also been ordered to pay Gabriel $300,000 in attorney’s fees. Court documents reveal that the two share equal custody of Nahla.[1]

IN MICHIGAN, Factors relevant to the amount of support.

• duration of the marriage
• the parties’ contribution to the joint estate
• the parties’ ages
• the parties’ health
• the parties’ stations in life
• the parties’ necessities and circumstances
• the parties’ earning abilities

Halle and Gabriel’s co-parenting situation certainly has not been the most ideal over the past couple of years.[1]

[T]he former couple’s 2012 Thanksgiving was stained with memories of bloodshed and a prison cell after Gabriel got into a physical altercation with Halle’s now-husband, Olivier Martinez.[1]

Aubry, 38, and Berry, 47, dated from 2005 to 2010 but never married. In 2012, the couple became involved in a custody dispute over Nahla, when a judge blocked the X-Men: Days of Future Past star from moving their daughter to France to live with her and her now-husband Olivier Martinez. The fight culminated in a physical altercation between Aubry and Martinez in November of 2012, People reported. Aubry and Berry now share equal custody of the girl, according to court documents.[2]

Because the number of female breadwinners is at a peak and more men are asking for shared custody, cases of women paying child support are likely on the rise, too. A 2012 survey of divorce lawyers in the United States found that 56 percent of attorneys saw an increase in numbers paying child support since 2009.[2]

"Courts look at income from all sources, such as earned income and income earned from their assets," Wolfe told MainStreet. "When fixing the rate of return for unearned income, courts will be guided by the actual historical returns or impute a reasonable assumed rate of return."[4]

IN MICHIGAN TO DETERMINE HOW LONG SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULDLAST THE FOLLOWING IS USED.

Rehabilitative spousal support.

Rehabilitative spousal support is temporary spousal support to help the dependent spouse make the transition to self-support. It can be appropriate to

• encourage a spouse to seek full-time employment and self-sufficiency
• allow a spouse to complete an advanced degree or obtain a marketable skill when he or she had worked while the other spouse obtained a degree
• allow a spouse to adjust to a lifestyle not based on combined incomes
• allow a spouse to obtain new job skills and enter the workforce

Permanent spousal support (generally until death or remarriage).

It has been found appropriate when there is

• a long-term marriage with a spouse who has no career or marketable skills
• a long-term marriage, one spouse with superior earning skills, and the other spouse with questionable earning capacity
• great discrepancy between incomes and a wife who devoted most of her adult life to homemaker role
• serious doubt that a spouse could support himself or herself because of a disability[5]

Berry isn't the first female star to be on the hook for child support. [Others]... who had to pay big.[3]

MADONNA

The Material Girl's reported $76-$96 million settlement in 2008 with Guy Ritchie was considered a record payout, let alone one by a woman. Even her publicist, Liz Rosenberg, acknowledged its significance.[3]

ANNE HECHE

When the marriage broke up five years later, Laffoon sought at least $33,000 a month in spousal support and custody of Homer, claiming that Heche was a poor parent with "bizarre and delusional behavior," according to a court filing obtained by People magazine. [3]

KRISTIE ALLEY

In one filing,...Kristi Alley’s husband... Stevenson asked for "sufficient support" to "maintain a lifestyle commensurate to that which Kirstie and I had enjoyed during our marriage," including $18,000 a month to pay rent on a home in Bel Air.[3]

Though Stevenson once enjoyed the spotlight, he claimed that his earnings were only a fraction of what Alley earned and he did not expect to ever approach her income. Ultimately, he settled for a one-time payout of $6 million, according to Forbes.com.[3]

BRITNEY SPEARS

Federline was embroiled in a custody battle with Spears, who only had visitation rights to see their children. In 2008, she gave up her custody fight but gained more visiting time with the boys. At the same time, her child support payments to Federline reportedly increased by $5,000 to $20,000 a month.[3]

Spears was also on the hook for Federline's legal fees to the tune of nearly half a million dollars.[3]

What can these Ladies do now?

IN MICHIGAN THESE STARS COULD ASK TO HAVE THEIR SUPPORT MODIFIED. THE COURT WILL LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING.

Modification. §§6.43–6.51.

If the court had personal jurisdiction over the payer at the time of the judgment, the court has continuing jurisdiction to revise or amend the order.

No minimum period must elapse before modification can be requested.

Retroactive modification is not available. However, the court can approve the parties’ agreement for retroactive modification.

Modification is possible only on a showing of new facts or changed circumstances since the judgment that justify a revision. The petitioner has the burden of justifying a change by a preponderance of the evidence.

Once a change in circumstances is shown, the court considers all the circumstances in deciding what modification to make.[5]

Factors indicating a change in circumstances.

• Remarriage—can trigger modification or termination unless specifically stated otherwise in the judgment, but remarriage can be only one consideration.
• Cohabitation—does not constitute a de facto marriage; can be relevant where it improves a spouse’s financial position.
• Changes in need—see examples in §6.48.
• Changes in ability to pay—see examples in §6.49.
• Retirement—effect appears to depend on whether parties fashioned award with retirement in mind; see examples in §6.50.
• Death of the payer—does not terminate the support obligation, which can be enforced against the estate, unless stated otherwise.[5]

------------------

[1]

http://madamenoire.com/437039/halle-berry-pay-gabriel-aubrey-16000-per-month-child-support/

[2]

http://time.com/2853415/halle-berry-ordered-to-pay-almost-200k-per-year-in-child-support/

[3]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/female-stars-whove-pay-post-split/story?id=24073222

[4]

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/family/marriage/divorce/halle-berry-child-support-settlement-escalates-battle-sexes

[5]

Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 6 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=6

(last updated 06/27/2014).

see

https://www.facebook.com/attorneybankert

see

https://occupyflintlegal.wordpress.com/

Sphere: Related Content

IMPUTATION OF INCOME IN SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR CHILD CUPPORT CALCUALTIONS

HOW ARE INCOME IMPUTATION DECISIONS MADE BY THE COURT

Presented here by Terry Bankert a Genesee Flint Family Law Attorney 810-235-1970

1. REAL INCOME

A. What is the real income  of the self employed engaged in an underground economy with unreported income?

HEYYUZA VS  HEYZA no 282790 unpublished The court opinionated that even if a party has unreported income, form purpose of calculating support, taxes that would be owed on that income should be taken into account. MCSF 2.02 3

EXAMPLES.

Landscapers

Beauticians

Personal Trainers

Dance Instructor

-BERGER VS BERGER ABility to earn $50,000 per  year as a nurse dance instructor see MSSF 2.01 G 2, a, b, d, h

Manicurists, nail techs

Restaurant business

Bar Business

Party Stores

Construction

Home Improvement

Maintenance

Contractor Generally

Mason

NOVAK VS NOVAK  no. 275267 July 22 208 . no imputed income because of mortgage  application stated income but masonry skills and past employment  imputed at $65,000.

Electricians

Plumbers

anyone doing side jobs

House Cleaners

Commercial Cleaners

Exotic dancers

Escorts

Companions for elderly

Professionals generally

Lawyer

Doctors

Dentist

chiropractors

holistic health people

Truck Driver

MCDOWELL VS MCDOWELL No 273807 May 22 2008 unpublished it Truck driver imputed income when working after  leaving his own company business. okay to subtract operating expenses and taxes. MCSF 2.021 2 G a d e h

b. unexercised ability to earn

STALLWORTH VS STALWORTH 275 Mich App 282 (2007) Criminal sentence is not a voluntary reduction.

b.WIERINGA VS WIERINGA no 288475 June 16 2009 Unpublished. It was not an abuse of discretion to not impute income to a spouse who was a homemaker and home-schooled children, two with special needs MCSF 2.01 G 2 a i ii.

b.MORK VS MORK no 283270 june 23 2009. appropriate to not impute income wife limited work experience, tried to find work, . include husbands employer provided room food, work experience did not warrants an unexercised ability to earn.

b.MYLAND VS MYLAN Court cannot guess but must use imputation factors  MCSF 2.01 G 2 a b.

b.TOAL VS TOAL The Court of Appeals found that it was appropriate to impute income to plaintiff husband in the amount of  $350,000 where he was previously employed as an investment banker and had retained investments. It was appropriate to consider plaintiffs unexercised ability to earn more than he was earning as a teaching coach. The court pointed out  this was not a deviation but  an appropriate imputation of income as permitted  by the Michigan CHild SUpport formula MCSF 2.01 G 2 a b h

b. VANGESTR V VANGEST No. 294427 March 1,2011 [unpublished]

The Court of Appeals upheld  a trial court's decision to award a substantial spousal support to balance the parties income taking into consideration the fact that the defendants income had been reduced by $10,000 per year because of a drunk driving conviction.

b. CARLSON V CARLSON No. 292536 June 26 2011 The COurt of Appeals found  that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider the factors enumerated in 2004 MCSF 2.10 (E) or finding that the defendant had the actual ability and likelyhood of earning the imputed income.  MSCF 2.01 (2)(G)(h)

c.The use of forensic accountants for business practices

MORRIS V MORRIS No 301555 January 31 2002 unpublished. The Court of Appeals found no error in imputing income $35,000 per year to plaintiff /payer who flipped houses and an expert was used to present an analysis of plaintiff business income.

d.Lifestyle analysis including support from friends and relatives

BYERS VS BYERS No. 300027 May 5 2011 unpublished

The Court of Appeals  upheld a trial court's child support and spousal support award essentially relying on evidence of defendants “ lifestyle” and ability to pay his bills arriving at imputing income  of $52,000 to him. Specifically refers to Michigan Child SUpport Formula factors MCSF 2.01 (G)(2)(h)

HOSTED V HOSTED  No 299116 December 20, 2011 The COurt of Appeals  remanded the issues of spousal support back to trial court for specific finding as to the alimony factors., but did not reverse the trial court's finding that the defendants business records could not support his lifestyle and imputed income of $61,280 pr year to him. Comparable factors MCSF 2.01 (G)(2)(h)

e. Cash Flow analysis see Cunningham

f. Earning capacity

RIEBSCHLEGER VS RIEBSCHLEGER No 270226 February 21 2008. The court of Appeals differentiates between imputed income and earning capacity. Court can impute additional money to arrive at spousal support award.

GEORGE VS GEORGE  no 277186 August 2008 unpublished . The court held the use of  the Department of labor statistics in determining income attributable to child support payer MSCF 2.01 G 2 a b c

MORRIS V MORRIS No 301555 January 31 2002 unpublished. The COurt of Appeals found no error in imputing income $35,000 per year to plaintiff /payer who flipped hjouses and an expert was used to present an analysis of plaintiff business income.

RUGIERO VS RIEGRO No 301829 June 19 2012 unpublished. The trial Court did not err in treating bank deposits as income. Plaintiff/payer was employed in a family restaurant business. The trial court added bank withdrawals to determine the amount plaintiff needed to cover his expenses and multiplied by 12 to determine plaintiffs yearly income deducted payments related to car expenses and added 25 percent(for taxes) to determine plaintiff had a gross income of $88,000 per year.

2. Voluntary termination versus loss of job

CHIPPS VS CHIPPS No. 291755 February 23, 2012 (unpublished)

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to impute income to defendant of $113,000 per year consistent with his prior employment where defendant voluntarily left his job to work at  his church for $36,000. This was despite the fact that defendant testified he could no longer get his job back. The Court of appeals noted the defendant was free to file a petition to modify  the child support in the future if defendant finds that “due to the economy or some other factor” he was unable to find employment at the imputed level by the trial court. MCSF 2.01 G 2 a b h

WILSON V WILSON No 31719 June 21 , 2011 [unpublished] Imputation to woman payee was found to be appropriate where parties had owned a business neither wanted to continue to operate. The imputed income amount was between what she would earn working full time at minimum wage  and what she would earn as a dental hygienist which she was trained to do. MCSF 2.01 (G)(2)(a)

a. The impact of divorce on someone's income, how skeptical should it be when someone's income goes down.

a. ANDREWS VS ANDREWS No 274338 March 11 2008 unpublished, Signing over interest in income producing partnership voluntary and bad faith reduction in income.

a .ASHBAKER VS ASHBAKER no 296947 October 18 2011 unpublished

The Court affirmed the trial courts decision not to impute income to a 62 year old spousal support payer who elected to retire and receive social security after he sold his business and experienced health problems MCSF 2.01 (G)(2)(a)(c)

b. What income averaging will you use--three years.

b.SPAGNUOLO VS SPAGNUOLO no 275439 May 21 2009 unpublished. The Court of Appeals found no error in income averaging over a three years to determine defendant/payers income when there was a significant variation in defendants yearly income.

c.What about a spouse who has been a stay at home mother or dad and out of the market for more than ten years. Do you impute income?

3. What about the economy since 2008.

A. Look to the Michigan Child Support Formula

B. Applicable Case law and Equivalent Factors under 2008 MCSF 2.01 (G)(2)

C.MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL WAGE GUIDELINES

c. LANDON VS SHELTON No. 297064 December 21, 2010 Unpublished.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court adoption of the referee's recommendation that the defendant / payers income be imputed at $51,800 based on the Michigan Occupational Wage guidelines for a property and real estate manager because there was no additional findings to support imputation to defendant in this amount.

D.BALANCING OF INCOMES

---

[1]

Imputation of income by Henry Gornbein, & Betty Lowenthal Presented at  American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Michigan CHapter, Advanced - Level Family Law Seminar Thursday May 02 2013 Birmingham Michigan

Sphere: Related Content