Eka Kristianti v. Timothy Karppinen
332676
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Parties married in 1999 and have one son (b. Nov 2000); defendant retired in 2007 and the child receives approximately $1,045/month in Social Security Dependent Benefits (SSDB) based on defendant’s earnings record.
- Plaintiff filed for divorce in Feb 2015; Friend of the Court calculated guideline support showing plaintiff would owe $583.20/month under the 2013 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF).
- Trial court entered interim order earlier finding defendant’s prospective $47.10 obligation offset by SSDB when defendant had custody.
- At trial the parties agreed defendant would have primary physical custody; plaintiff sought deviation arguing it would be unjust to require her to pay child support given child’s $1,045 SSDB.
- Trial court deviated from the MCSF, found the SSDB effectively satisfied child support, and ordered that plaintiff pay no child support, incorporating a deviation addendum showing the guideline amount and stating the reason for deviation.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court could consider deviation but failed to address the parties’ relative incomes, the child’s needs, or other facts required before deviating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly deviated from the MCSF to eliminate plaintiff’s support obligation | Deviation appropriate because child already receives $1,045/month SSDB; requiring additional payments would be unjust | Deviation was improper; trial court should have enforced the guideline support ($583.20) absent proper factual findings | Remanded: deviation may be permissible, but trial court did not make required factual findings (relative incomes, child’s needs); must consider specific facts before deviating |
| Whether treating SSDB paid from custodial parent’s earnings as satisfying support is legally permissible | SSDB should offset guideline support similarly regardless of which parent’s earnings record produced benefits | Offset applies only when SSDB is based on the payer’s earnings; here benefits derive from defendant’s record and trial court erred to treat them as automatically fulfilling mother’s obligation | Court recognized that MCSF permits an offset when benefits are payer-based; but where benefits are from custodial parent’s record the MCSF does not directly account for that scenario, so deviation analysis required |
Key Cases Cited
- Paulson v. Paulson, 254 Mich. App. 568 (Mich. Ct. App.) (upheld deviation where guidelines did not account for custodial-parent–based SSDB and circumstances justified departure)
- Burba v. Burba, 461 Mich. 637 (Mich.) (requires courts to state on record reasons when deviating from child support formula)
- Milligan v. Milligan, 197 Mich. App. 665 (Mich. Ct. App.) (child support ensures ongoing needs of child)
- Stallworth v. Stallworth, 275 Mich. App. 282 (Mich. Ct. App.) (discusses standards for deviation from MCSF)
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich. App. 706 (Mich. Ct. App.) (trial court abuses discretion if it relies on legally improper reason to deviate)
- Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich. App. 666 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing discretionary rulings)
- Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791 (Mich.) (appellate review standards for factual findings)
- Clarke v. Clarke, 297 Mich. App. 172 (Mich. Ct. App.) (courts must follow plain language of MCSF)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 272 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App.) (statutory construction principles applied to MCSF)