Case ID: mich-app_63/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEN v ALLEN
    Divorce — Child Support — Age of Majority — Statutes.
    Child support pursuant to a judgment of divorce may not be awarded to a child after he has reached the age of 18 because the Legislature has made an 18-year-old an adult for all purposes whatsoever, notwithstanding any law to the contrary (MCLA 722.52).
    References for Points in Headnote
    24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 832.
    Power of court in divorce or separation suit to provide for support of, or aid to, adult child, or to continue provision for support after child attains majority. 162 ALR 1090.
    Appeal from Washtenaw, Ross W. Campbell, J.
    Submitted June 12, 1975, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 21831.)
    Decided August 14, 1975.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    Complaint by Emmitt J. Allen against Delores v. Allen for divorce. Divorce granted with custody of the children and child support awarded to defendant. Defendant’s petition for continuation of child support payments was granted. Plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    
      Ulrich, Pear & Fink, P. C., for plaintiff.
    
      Peter P. Darrow, for defendant.
    Before: Allen, P. J., and D. F. Walsh and O’Hara,  JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff husband from a Washtenaw County Circuit Court order requiring him to continue making payments for the support of his child Jamie Allen from January 19, 1974, the date of the child’s 18th birthday, until June 12, 1974, the date on which the child had completed high school. The court also reserved the right to order payments for the further education and support of Jamie Allen and also payments for the support of Karen Allen. The plaintiff argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s petition for support payments filed on May 24, 1974, because both of the children involved had already attained the age of 18 and were therefore considered adults under the Age of Majority Act of 1971, MCLA 722.52; MSA 25.244 (52) (effective January 1,1972).

The trial court ruled that in spite of this statute it did have the power to order payments for the support and education of the two children on the ground that any rights under the original judgment of divorce had accrued on the date of its entry, June 26, 1962, and that these rights were unaffected by the subsequent legislative enactment. That judgment required the payment for the support and maintenance of each minor child until the child reached the age of 18 or until the further order of the court; and jurisdiction was retained by the court to order payments for the education of the minor children until each attained the age of 21.

This case is governed by Price v Price, 51 Mich App 656; 215 NW2d 756 (1974), lv granted 391 Mich 838 (1974). It was there determined that:

"[A]n adult child is not entitled to support under the [Age of Majority Act]. Since the Legislature had made an 18-year-old an adult for all purposes whatsoever, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, support cannot properly be awarded to a child who has reached the age of 18.” Price v Price, supra, at 660. (Emphasis the Court’s.)

We are aware of the decision of another panel of this court in Barbier v Barbier, 45 Mich App 402; 206 NW2d 464 (1973), which involves a similar factual situation. Insofar as that decision is in conflict with Price, supra, we decline to follow it.

The order of the circuit court is vacated and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.