Child support; Principle that a trial court may modify a child support order if modification is justified by a change in circumstances; Kosch v. Kosch; Lemmen v. Lemmen; Principle that property-settlement agreements are generally final & cannot be modified; Smith v. Smith; Principle that a provision’s location in a judgment is a distinction lacking a meaningful difference; Holmes v. Holmes; Principle that retroactive modification of a support payment due under a support order is permissible with respect to a period during which there is pending a petition for modification, but only from the date that notice of the petition was given to the payer or recipient of support; MCL 552.603(2); Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO); Uniform Spousal Support Order (USSO); Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF)

Holding that the trial court erred by denying the plaintiff-mother’s motion to modify child support and seek Friend of the Court (FOC) services without considering the motion on the merits, the court reversed and remanded. The parties’ divorce judgment included a property settlement and incorporated by reference spousal and child support orders. Plaintiff sought an increase in child support and FOC services, claiming the defendant-father’s income had increased substantially, which constituted a change in circumstances. The trial court denied her motion. On appeal, the court noted that plaintiff could not “collaterally attack the original divorce judgment,” but could “file a motion to change support based on a change of circumstances.” In that respect, it concluded that “the trial court erred by holding that the child support provisions and the property settlement are inextricably tied together and that the support provisions are non-modifiable.” It found that the “parties’ testimonies combined with the plain language of the UCSO, USSO, and property settlement support that plaintiff’s salary was child support and spousal support, which plaintiff received in lieu of direct support payments, not a property settlement.” As such, “the trial court erred by not considering the motion to modify support on its merits.” Further, the “parties’ testimony demonstrate[d] that, despite their best efforts to provide specifics, no one really knows how much of plaintiff’s salary is specifically attributable to child support as opposed to spousal support, and so comparisons to the MCSF lack[ed] a clear basis.”