Case ID: mich_358/html/0134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Voelker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEFF v. NEFF.
    Divorce — Custody of Children — Modification—Friend of the Court — Record.
    Modification of decree of divorce on father’s contested petition to modify, so as to change custody of children from mother to father, made without hearing any testimony, and based upon an oral report by the friend of the court, is reversed and remanded in order that an evidentiary record be made so that it may be determined whether or not such a modification is warranted by change of circumstances.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    17A Am Jur, Divorce and Separation § 837 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Berrien; Hadsell (Philip A.), J.
    Submitted October 7,1959.
    (Docket No. 19, Calendar No. 48,022.)
    Decided November 25, 1959.
    Bill by Susie E. Neff against George M. Neff resulted in decree of divorce. Order entered, on defendant’s petition, amending decree to grant him custody of children. Plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Stratton, Wise, Early, McDonald é Starbuclc, for plaintiff.
    
      Seymour & Seymour (Dalton Q. Seymour, of counsel), for defendant.
   Voelker, J.

The chancellor below, without hearing any testimony, and on the basis of an oral report made to him in open court by the friend of the court, granted defendant father’s contested petition to modify a decree of divorce (which decree originally awarded custody of the children. to the plaintiff mother), thereby changing custody to the father. The plaintiff mother has appealed.

There is no point in further outlining the factual background of this case as it appears to be raised by the current pleadings. It is enough to say that there is a dispute. The action below was taken before our recent decisions were handed down in Bowler v. Bowler, 351 Mich 398, and Campbell v. Evans, 358 Mich 128. In view of those cases we find we must reverse and remand this case for further proceedings, including a hearing before the chancellor. Even assuming arguendo that custody of the children should be changed to the father, which we do not pass on, there is no way from the skimpy and almost nonexistent evidentiary record before us that we can determine whether there was any change in circumstances or, if so, whether it was sufficient to warrant the action taken below. It is especially important in cases of this nature, where possible further and future changes in circumstances may possibly lead to still further moves toward modification, that an evidentiary record be made. See, also, the somewhat related case of Krachun v. Krachun, 355 Mich 167.

The order below modifying the decree as to custody of the children is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings, with costs to appellant.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Smith, Black,. Edwards, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.