-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

LAWRENCE LYNELL SIMMONS, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

February 28, 2017 

v No. 329955 

Kalamazoo Circuit Court 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES/OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT 

CENTRAL OPERATIONS, 

LC No. 2015-000159-AA 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and MARKEY and M. J. KELLY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Petitioner appeals as of right from the trial court’s order affirming the decision of 

respondent, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Central 

Operations (OCS), to place a lien on petitioner’s credit union account for the amount of 

$1,850.90 for unpaid child support. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. 

 On August 13, 1990, the trial court entered an order of filiation determining petitioner to 

be the father of a minor child who was born on November 13, 1987. The order required 

petitioner to pay $20 a week in child support until the child reached the age of 18. 

 On March 18, 2015, OCS sent a notice of lien to petitioner’s financial institution, Kalsee 

Credit Union, as a result of an unpaid child support order pursuant to MCL 552.625a and MCL 

552.625c. The notice provided that as of March 16, 2015, petitioner owed unpaid child support 

in the amount of $17,480.38, and mandated that funds in the amount of $1,850.90 be frozen. 

 On March 31, 2015, petitioner sought administrative review of the lien, arguing that he 

was not the owner of the funds in the account. OCS denied the request because petitioner did not 

provide documentation to support his claim that there was a mistake of fact regarding the amount 

of overdue support or petitioner’s identity. 

 Petitioner filed a claim of appeal in the trial court on April 17, 2015, challenging OCS’ 

denial of his request for administrative review. On June 15, 2015, OCS moved to affirm the 

seizure of petitioner’s financial assets and to dismiss petitioner’s action in the trial court. OCS 

argued that the records of the Kalamazoo County Friend of the Court showed that petitioner 
-2- 

owed in excess of the $1,850.90 seized from his account and that there was no mistake as to the 

amount of the unpaid child support. 

 On June 22, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on OCS’ motion to affirm the seizure of 

petitioner’s financial assets and to dismiss his cause of action and denied the motion, reasoning 

that the motion was premature. The court also noted that the record was missing a copy of the 

original support order. Subsequently, petitioner moved to compel OCS to produce a certified 

copy of the record. In a response motion, OCS submitted screen shots from the Michigan Child 

Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) database showing that there was a valid child support 

order and that petitioner owed unpaid child support. At a hearing, the trial court indicated that it 

was satisfied that the record complied with MCR 7.109(A)(2) and denied petitioner’s motion to 

compel a certified copy of the record. 

 Thereafter, petitioner moved for immediate reconsideration and peremptory reversal and 

the court denied both motions. Petitioner then filed a complaint for mandamus in this Court, 

which this Court denied.1

 

 On September 15, 2015, the trial court affirmed the decision of OCS, concluding that the 

1990 child support order remained valid. The trial court noted that although “new child support 

payment requirements did not accrue after [petitioner’s] daughter reached 18 years of age,” 

petitioner was not absolved “of his obligation to pay for the child support that was due and 

remains unpaid from before his daughter reached 18 years of age.” Accordingly, the lien was 

authorized by law. The court entered an order on September 15, 2015. Petitioner filed a claim 

of appeal on October 30, 2015.2 

 On appeal, petitioner asserts that the child support order at issue terminated when the 

child turned 18, which occurred on November 13, 2005. As a result, petitioner argues, he was no 

longer obligated to make any payments after that date. Petitioner’s arguments are devoid of 

merit. 

 “This Court reviews a lower court’s review of an administrative decision to determine 

whether the lower court applied correct legal principles and whether it misapprehended or 

misapplied the substantial evidence test to the agency’s factual findings, which is essentially a 

clearly erroneous standard of review.” Vanzandt v State Employees Retirement System, 266 

 

1

 Simmons v Kalamazoo Circuit Court Judge, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, 

entered August 25, 2015 (Docket No. 328671). 

2

 Petitioner moved for punitive damages and for peremptory reversal. Those motions were 

denied. Simmons v Office of Child Support Central Operations, unpublished order of the Court 

of Appeals, entered March 23, 2016 (Docket No. 329955); Simmons v Office of Child Support 

Central Operations, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 23, 2016 

(Docket No. 329955). This Court also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Simmons 

v Office of Child Support Central Operations, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered 

October 19, 2016 (Docket No. 329955). 
-3- 

Mich App 579, 585; 701 NW2d 214 (2005). Clear error occurs where, “after reviewing the 

record, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. 

 The trial court properly affirmed the decision of OCS. Pursuant to MCL 600.5809(4), the 

statute of limitations for an action to enforce a child support order “is 10 years from the date that 

the last support payment is due under the support order regardless of whether or not the last 

payment is made.” Here, the last child support payment was due on November 13, 2005, the 

date of the child’s 18th birthday. As a result, the statute of limitations period began to run on 

November 13, 2005, and ended on November 13, 2015. MCL 600.5809(4). OCS placed the lien 

on petitioner’s account on March 18, 2015, which was within the 10-year period of limitations. 

As a result, the lien was authorized by law and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are devoid 

of merit. See Rzadkowolski v Pefley, 237 Mich App 405, 411; 603 NW2d 646 (1999) 

(concluding that under MCL 600.5809(4), the parent would have “ten years after [the child] 

turned eighteen[] to seek enforcement of the entire arrearage” of child support payments). The 

trial court did not err by affirming OCS’ administrative order.3

 

 Affirmed. Appellee having prevailed, may tax costs. MCR 7.219(A). We do not retain 

jurisdiction. 

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

 

3

 In its brief on appeal, OCS requests relief in the amount of $600 for the attorney time expended 

in having to defend this appeal pursuant to MCR 7.216(C), which allows this Court to award 

actual and punitive damages when it determines that an appeal was vexatious. However, a party 

seeking damages under MCR 7.216(C) “must file a motion under MCR 7.211(C)(8).” Fette v 

Peters Const Co, 310 Mich App 535, 553; 871 NW2d 877 (2015). “A request that is contained 

in any other pleading, including a brief . . . will not constitute a motion under this rule.” MCR 

7.11(C)(8). Accordingly, OCS’ request for relief is improper and we reject the request.