Court Opinion

ID: 9689027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:16:56.976629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:49.126461
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dis*599sent. The lower court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition should not have been entered without a hearing to examine and make findings of fact on the evidence presented by the plaintiff in support of the requested modification.
A trial court is statutorily empowered to modify previously entered child support orders upon a properly filed petition by either parent or the friend of the court. MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97. The decision on such a petition has been held to be within the court’s discretion. Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382; 94 NW2d 810 (1959). Further, it is the petitioning party’s burden to present evidence "establishing a change in circumstances that would justify an alteration of the divorce judgment” provisions as to child support. McCarthy v McCarthy 74 Mich App 105, 108; 253 NW2d 672 (1977), citing Hentz v Hentz, 371 Mich 355; 123 NW2d 757 (1963), and Cymbal v Cymbal, 43 Mich App 566; 204 NW2d 235 (1972). It is difficult to conceive how a petitioning party could establish the requisite change of circumstances without some formal hearing at which evidence is presented and from which findings of fact can be made. The fact that the instant petition was denied does not, in my view, make the hearing requirement moot.
The instant case is very like McCarthy, supra, 109, in which this Court indicated the necessity of a premodification hearing:
"The order was made without a hearing and there was no agreement expressed or implied to allow the court to utilize solely the Friend of the Court’s recommendation. Krachun v Krachun, [355 Mich 167; 93 NW2d 885 (1959)], Stros v Stros, [25 Mich App 154; 181 NW2d 26 (1970)]. Additionally, the recommendation was based totally upon the fact of defendant’s increase *600in salary. All relevant factors are to be considered in determining whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances. Cymbal, supra, Stros, supra. The isolated consideration of income is error. Cymbal, supra.”
Thus, prior to its decision on a petition to modify child support the court must hold an evidentiary hearing of its own or, when both parties agree, adopt the factual predicate in the friend of the court’s report. See Krachun, supra, 169, in which the Supreme Court stated:
"Such a report is authorized by statute for the consideration of the circuit judge. CL 1948, § 552.253 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.173); Metzinger v Metzinger, 310 Mich 335 [; 17 NW2d 203 (1945)]. It is not generally admissible in evidence. Brugel v Hildebrant, [332 Mich 475; 52 NW2d 190 (1952)]. It may, however, by agreement of all parties be accepted in evidence as constituting an agreed statement of facts or record of testimony. Bowler v Bowler, 351 Mich 398 [; 88 NW2d 505 (1958)].” (Emphasis in original.)
The trial court in this case perfunctorily denied counsel for the plaintiffs request for "a full hearing before this matter is finalized”. In light of the above-noted hearing requirements, I would set aside the lower court’s order denying plaintiffs petition and remand the case for a hearing on its merits.