Child support; Retroactive modification; MCL 552.603(2); Michigan Child Support Formula 2.01(E)(4)(d); Friend of the Court (FOC); Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO)

Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to retroactively modify support beyond 2/22, the court affirmed the order adopting the FOC’s child support recommendation retroactive to that point. The parties divorced in 2010. Defendant-ex-wife moved to modify child support in 2/22. The FOC recommended a modification for the parties’ younger child effective the date of that motion. She argued the modification should be retroactive to 7/14 under MCL 552.603(2). The court disagreed. The trial court determined that the 12/9/14 UCSO and a 4/15 “order resolved the child support issue raised in defendant’s” 7/14 motion. She asserted that the 12/14 order was temporary and her 7/14 modification request was pending at the relevant time. The court found “no merit in this argument. MCR 3.207(C)(4) requires that ‘[a] temporary order must state its effective date and whether its provisions may be modified retroactively by a subsequent order.’ The 2014 UCSO was clearly labeled as a modification, not a temporary order. It also did not state that its provisions could be modified retroactively; rather, it stated that the support modification was effective” 8/29/14. Defendant “did not object to the 2014 UCSO. [She] also did not seek relief from the order” based on a mistake under MCR 2.612(C)(2). In addition, the 4/15 “order made it clear that there was not a pending motion because it invited defendant ‘to file a motion for modification of child support if discovery or other change of circumstances justifies’ it.” She did not object to this order. While “defense counsel orally requested an evidentiary hearing in [1/19], the trial court denied the request absent a motion. At that time, [it] noted that discovery had continued for five years without the filing of a substantive motion. Despite [its] nudging, defendant waited three more years before finally moving to modify child support and requesting an evidentiary hearing.” The court held that given “these facts, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that plaintiff could have reasonably believed that there was not a petition for modification of child support before the [trial] court until defendant moved for modification in” 2/22. Further, because “there was no evidence to support that plaintiff misrepresented his income, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply MCL 552.603b to retroactively modify support beyond” that date.