Court Opinion

ID: 9700749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:47:55.120648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.303120
License: Public Domain

*448Griffin, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would reverse on narrow grounds. At issue, in this appeal is a 1981 circuit court- order that specifically provides for modification by using the language "until further order of the court.” Although defendant now contends that he never agreed to the language allowing for modification, there was no objection to the order when it was entered in 1981 and defendant never appealed.
An agreement to provide support for a child born out of wedlock requires approval by the court, MCL 722.713(a); MSA 25.493(a), and it is well settled that a court speaks only through its written orders. Tiedman v Tiedman, 400 Mich 571, 576-577; 255 NW2d 632 (1977). Moreover, a judgment entered by consent is not a contract; rather, it has the same force and effect as a litigated judgment. Trendell v Solomon, 178 Mich App 365, 369; 443 NW2d 509 (1989). Because the order in this case allows for modification, the court was not barred from entertaining plaintiff’s request for an increase in support. Compare Morrison v Richerson, 198 Mich App 202, 209-211; 497 NW2d 506 (1993).