Change of circumstances for modification; MCL 552.28; Loutts v Loutts; Retroactive modification limits; MCL 552.603; Cipriano v Cipriano; Contract interpretation of divorce judgment; MCL 552.13; Andrusz v Andrusz; Attorney fee award; MCR 3.206; Reed v Reed

The court held that the trial court properly modified but did not terminate plaintiff’s spousal support obligation, and correctly limited retroactivity to the date notice of the modification petition was provided, but erred by awarding attorney fees without factual findings requiring a remand on that issue. On appeal, the court held that defendant’s remarriage constituted a new circumstance warranting review of support and quoted that “remarriage can justify modification when equitable under the circumstances.” The court also found that defendant’s increased income was anticipated at the time of divorce and stated that “a change must involve facts arising after entry of the judgment.” It next found that the dispositional ruling reducing support to balance the parties’ situations was equitable, noting “the object is to balance incomes so neither party is impoverished.” The court further held that retroactive modification could not precede the filing date of the petition, noting MCL 552.603(2) allows retroactivity only “from the date notice of the petition was given.” Finally, the court held that attorney fees required findings regarding necessity and reasonableness, finding that a court may not award fees “solely on equitable principles” without an evidentiary basis. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.