_______________________________ 

Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

Chief Justice: Justices: 

Clifford W. Taylor Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver Opinion Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman 

FILED JUNE 4, 2008 

LANCE N. LEMMEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v No. 135405 

BARBARA LEMMEN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION. 

At issue here is whether MCL 552.17(1) and MCL 552.28 fall within an 

exception to the rule of MCR 7.208(A) that a trial court may not amend a final 

judgment after a claim of appeal has been filed or leave to appeal has been 

granted. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the Court of Appeals and 

hold that the statutes are exceptions “otherwise provided by law,” MCR 

7.208(A)(4), with regard to child and spousal support if the trial court finds that 

there has been a change in circumstances. 

 MCR 7.208(A) provides: 

Limitations. After a claim of appeal is filed or leave to appeal 

is granted, the trial court or tribunal may not set aside or amend the 

judgment or order appealed from except 
(1) by order of the Court of Appeals, 

(2) by stipulation of the parties, 

(3) after a decision on the merits in an action in which a 

preliminary injunction was granted, or 

(4) as otherwise provided by law. 

MCL 552.17(1) provides: 

After entry of a judgment concerning annulment, divorce, or 

separate maintenance and on the petition of either parent, the court 

may revise and alter a judgment concerning the care, custody, 

maintenance, and support of some or all of the children, as the 

circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children require. 

MCL 552.28 provides: 

On petition of either party, after a judgment for alimony or 

other allowance for either party or a child, or after a judgment for the 

appointment of trustees to receive and hold property for the use of 

either party or a child, and subject to [MCL 552.17], the court may 

revise and alter the judgment, respecting the amount or payment of 

the alimony or allowance, and also respecting the appropriation and 

payment of the principal and income of the property held in trust, 

and may make any judgment respecting any of the matters that the 

court might have made in the original action. 

Under MCR 7.208(A)(4), a trial court can only amend a judgment after a claim of 

appeal has been filed or leave to appeal has been granted if an exception is 

“otherwise provided by law.” MCL 552.17(1) and MCL 552.28 authorize a trial 

court to modify judgments concerning child or spousal support after entry of the 

judgment. In general, a trial court may modify child or spousal support after the 

judgment has entered if there is a change in circumstances. Havens v HavensAnthony, 335 Mich 445, 451; 56 NW2d 346 (1953). MCL 552.17(1) and MCL 

552.28 do not specifically state that the trial court may modify support after a 

2
 
claim of appeal has been filed or leave to appeal has been granted, nor do they 

limit the trial court’s authority to modify to instances in which the appeals process 

is complete. Rather, MCL 552.17(1) and MCL 552.28 provide courts with a broad 

grant of authority to modify spousal and child support orders under the appropriate 

circumstances. Therefore, MCL 552.17(1) and MCL 552.28 satisfy the exception 

in MCR 7.208(A)(4) allowing a trial court to amend an order or judgment during 

an appeal “as otherwise provided by law.” 

The language found in MCL 552.17(1), “as the circumstances of the 

parents and the benefit of the children require,” suggests that the purpose of 

allowing modification of a final judgment regarding child support is to ensure the 

welfare of the children when the circumstances of the parents or the needs of the 

children have changed. The language found in MCL 552.28, “may make any 

judgment respecting any of the matters that the court might have made in the 

original action,” allows the trial court to reassess the amount of spousal support 

that is necessary after a judgment has entered. There would be no need to adjust 

the amount of spousal support unless there had been a change in the circumstances 

of either party. Therefore, to require the trial court to wait to make modifications 

until after an appeal is completed is contrary to the plain language of the statutes 

and would defeat their purpose, which is to enable the trial court to make 

modifications to child and spousal support orders when such modifications are 

necessary. The appeals process might take several years to complete. If there is a 

change in circumstances that would affect the needs of one of the parties or their 

3
 
children, or the ability of one of the parties to pay, the trial court should not, and 

does not, have to wait until that time has passed to modify a support order. 

Affirmed. 

Clifford W. Taylor 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

 Marilyn Kelly 

 Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman 

4