Court Opinion

ID: 9670312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:18:47.188167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.832823
License: Public Domain

Griffin, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The divorce judgment at issue was prepared by plaintiff’s attorney and was approved "as to form and content” by plaintiff. Further, the support provision for his handicapped child that plaintiff now appeals was initialed by plaintiff. I would affirm the decision of the lower court on the ground that the child support provision is valid and enforceable pursuant to MCL 552.16a(4)(b); MSA 25.96(l)(4)(b).
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that "where the [statutory] language used is clear, then the Legislature must have intended the meaning it has plainly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.” Gebhardt v O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535, 541-542; 510 NW2d 900 (1994); Hiltz v Phil’s Quality Market, 417 Mich 335, 343; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). The language of MCL 552.16a(4) (b); MSA 25.96(l)(4)(b) is plain and unambiguous:
*388[A] provision contained in a judgment or an order entered under this act before, on, and after the effective date of this section that provides for the support of a child after the child reaches 18 years of age is valid and enforceable if 1 or more of the following apply:
(b) The provision is contained in the judgment or order by agreement of the parties as evidenced by the approval of the substance of the judgment or order by the parties or their attorneys. [Emphasis added.]
Despite the clear dictates of the statute, the majority holds that approval of the substance of a judgment by a party is insufficient evidence of an agreement to provide support. The majority believes that the statute "contemplates” further proofs of the agreement and of the parties’ state of mind. No authority is cited for this proposition. Under today’s ruling, a party who approved a child support provision relative to substance is not bound by the judgment unless his adversary can prove a "conscious agreement” to the terms of the child support provision. In most instances, an evidentiary hearing would be required to make a factual finding regarding a party’s intent and motivation in approving a child support provision.
In my view, the majority has either ignored or misread the plain wording of the statute. Approval of the substance of a judgment is itself proof of an agreement for support. The statute requires nothing more.
I would affirm.