Child support modification; Deviation from the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF); MCL 552.605(2); Burba v Burba (After Remand); 2017 MCSF 1.04(A) & (E); Divorcing parties’ ability to create enforceable contracts; Holmes v Holmes; Parol evidence; Andrusz v Andrusz; Uniform child support order (UCSO)

The court found no clear error in the trial court’s determination “the parties’ stipulated child support amount deviated from the MCSF.” And it rejected defendant-father’s contention plaintiff-mother’s testimony she gave up her interest in his “pension in exchange for enhanced child support” was impermissible parol evidence. But it held that the trial court’s order for a continued $750 a month child support deviation was not supported by the record and that the trial court failed to make adequate findings, as mandated by MCL 552.605(2), to justify this deviation from the MCSF. Thus, it vacated the order “denying defendant’s objections and requiring him to pay monthly child support of $899 and” remanded. It directed the trial court to “either justify the $750 deviation, sufficiently supporting and appropriately applying the criteria listed in MCL 552.605(2), determine a different, appropriate deviation, or enter an order for child support under the MCSF.” As to plaintiff’s challenged testimony, given that “neither the consent judgment nor the UCSO contained the statutorily required information, the trial court could consider both parties’ testimony regarding the reasons and circumstances underlying the stipulated child support amount to fill in the gaps to properly assess whether, and to what extent, the support should be modified in amount or duration.” But the court agreed with defendant’s assertion “that, by its terms, the parties’ initial child support agreement was not intended to be permanent.” The consent judgment provided that he “would pay $1,000 per month for the support of two children, or $750 for the support of one child, until each child attained the age of 18, graduated high school, reached 19½ years of age while still in high school, ‘or until further order of this Court.’” The court concluded “the trial court erred by adopting the referee’s recommendation for a $750 deviation from the $149 support amount calculated under the MCSF.” While a deviation may be appropriate here, the record was “inadequate to explain or justify how the $750 upward deviation is just and appropriate in this case, particularly concerning ‘[t]he value of property or other support awarded instead of the payment of child support,’ MCL 552.605(2)(c).”