Divorce; Child support; Imputing income; Failure to follow the requirements of the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) & MCL 552.605(2); Award of income tax exemptions for children; Marital estate division; Consideration of what property was marital & what was separate; Spousal support; MCL 552.23(1); Attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D)

In this divorce case, the court held as to child support that the trial court abused its discretion in imputing income to a party without following the requirements of the MCSF and MCL 552.605(2). As to the property division, it found the trial court failed to “differentiate between marital and separate property,” or to try to determine the value of the property. Further, the issue of spousal support required remand in light of the income and property division matters. And because the trial court’s decisions on all those “issues on remand may impact its decision concerning attorney fees,” remand was also required on that issue. The court vacated the trial court’s rulings as to “(1) child support; (2) the division of the marital estate; (3) spousal support; and (4) attorney fees[,]” and remanded. It agreed with plaintiff-mother that “the trial court abused its discretion when it imputed income to her and awarded defendant a child-tax exemption despite defendant having no overnight parenting time.” She testified that she made “$30 per hour at her current job and the hours vary between 10 and 20 hours per week. The trial court used defendant’s actual income for the child support calculation. But [it] imputed income to plaintiff of $30 an hour for 40 hours per week based on [her] testimony ‘that she makes $30 per hour.’ The MCSF requires the parties’ actual net incomes be used to calculate the support obligation.” The trial court failed to “state on the record or in writing, pursuant to MCL 552.605(2), the child support amount determined by application of the child support formula or the reasons why application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the case. [It] also failed to consult the factors listed in 2021 MCSF 2.01(G) to determine whether plaintiff had an actual ability to earn and a reasonable likelihood of earning the potential income imputed to her.” Further, it “abused its discretion in allocating the dependent tax deduction without consulting the MCSF.” In addition, because “the recalculation of plaintiff’s income might affect the trial court’s determination concerning any award of spousal support,” the court vacated its ruling that she was not entitled to spousal support. It also directed the trial court to revisit her request for attorney fees on remand “after plaintiff’s income is recalculated and the issues of spousal support and property division are settled.”