Divorce; Child support; Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO); Errors in a divorce judgment; Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D)(2); Judicial bias; Kern v Kern-Koskela; Friend of the Court (FOC); Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering defendant-ex-husband to pay child support before making any factual findings as to the parties’ incomes and made other errors requiring it to vacate the UCSO. It also reversed certain divorce judgment provisions and vacated the award of attorney fees to plaintiff-ex-wife. It found that the record lacked “any findings of fact as to the parties’ respective incomes used to calculate the amount of support ordered in the UCSO.” They testified at trial “as to their hourly wages, but the trial court made no findings on the record indicating it based the support award on those amounts. The UCSO” did not list their incomes. If “the trial court wanted assistance with the UCSO, it could have ordered the [FOC] to ‘investigate all relevant facts and to make a written report and recommendation to the parties and their attorneys and to the’” trial court as to support. But instead, “plaintiff’s counsel ‘ran the calculations of child support’ and submitted the proposed UCSO to the” trial court. Without any factual findings about their incomes, it was impossible to determine whether the MCSF was properly applied. Further, absent factual findings to review, the court could “only conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it determined the premium amount defendant should be responsible to pay” for the youngest child’s (M) health insurance. It reversed the divorce judgment and UCSO provisions that required both parties to provide M health insurance. As to attorney fees, the “trial court’s reasoning that defendant benefited from the representation of plaintiff’s counsel does not fall within the scope of MCR 3.206(D) and was therefore erroneous.” Further, nothing in the record indicated “plaintiff was unable to bear the expense of the action, and defendant was able to pay.” Thus, the court held that the “decision to grant plaintiff’s request for attorney fees fell outside the range of principled outcomes and constituted an abuse of discretion.” But it rejected defendant’s judicial bias claim. The trial court was directed on remand to “compel plaintiff to provide income documentation to re-calculate defendant’s support obligation[,]” and to make findings of fact as to “attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D), and plaintiff’s obligation for the mortgage, utilities, and property taxes” related to the marital home.