Erika Bridge v. Andrew Bridge
335453
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Parties divorced after a 7-year marriage with two minor children; plaintiff (mother) had established custodial environment and had interim sole custody; defendant (father) appealed final orders.
- Trial court awarded joint legal custody, imputed income to defendant for support calculations, ordered child support $2,035/month and spousal support $711/month for one year, and split the two child dependency exemptions (one per parent).
- Defendant had shifted from employee to independent contractor sales work; historically high earnings (~$300,000 in 2015) but 2016 business records showed reduced net after expenses; court disallowed several business deductions and imputed annual income of $132,000 for child-support purposes.
- Plaintiff worked part-time as a music teacher (~$32,000) after an involuntary loss of full-time position; court declined to impute additional income to her.
- Parties used the Our Family Wizard program to communicate; court found improved communication and that neither parent’s mental-health or misconduct rendered joint legal custody inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of defendant's income for child support | Bridge argued income should reflect actual reduced business net | Bridge argued court misunderstood business and wrongly imputed $132,000 | Court affirmed imputation; disallowed certain business expenses and imputed $132,000 based on historical earnings, partner’s income, and quotas |
| Imputation of plaintiff's income | Bridge argued plaintiff’s part-time status was involuntary and should not be imputed extra income | Bridge argued court should impute more income to plaintiff | Court declined to impute; found plaintiff actively sought full-time work and reduction was involuntary |
| Parenting-time offset (overnights) | Bridge argued custody/overnight count justified the court’s offset | Bridge argued the court arbitrarily assigned 117 overnights to him | Court upheld 117-overnight offset as a reasonable approximation based on calculations and input |
| Spousal support award | Bridge argued the court applied relevant spousal-support factors and limited support appropriately | Bridge argued trial court failed to analyze factors before awarding $711/month for one year | Court affirmed; made fact-findings on relevant factors and limited duration to one year |
| Retroactive modification of support | Bridge argued support should be retroactively reduced to account for decreased income and overpayments returned | Bridge argued defendant failed to timely pursue modification; payments should remain | Court refused retroactive modification; held defendant did not timely pursue relief and policy disfavors retroactive reductions |
| Change from sole to joint legal custody | Bridge argued trial court failed to identify established custodial environment and apply clear-and-convincing standard | Bridge argued change was improper and best-interest analysis flawed | Court found established custodial environment with mother, applied clear-and-convincing standard, and affirmed joint legal custody after best-interest analysis |
| Child dependency exemptions | Bridge argued custodial parent should get both exemptions | Bridge argued defendant should get both to offset overpayments | Court treated exemptions as part of child-support scheme and awarded one exemption to each parent as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Carlson, 293 Mich. App. 203 (imputation-of-income abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791 (clear-error review for spousal-support fact findings)
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich. App. 706 (child-support calculation and parenting-time offset rules)
- Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich. App. 666 (de novo review of MCSF interpretation)
- Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81 (established custodial environment and burden for modification)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (spousal-support factors and custody factor-weighting)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 276 Mich. App. 424 (disfavoring retroactive modification of child support)
- People v. Szalma, 487 Mich. 708 (principle against seeking relief for errors to which party contributed)
- Korth v. Korth, 256 Mich. App. 286 (trial court must make factual findings on relevant spousal-support factors)
- Shulick v. Richards, 273 Mich. App. 320 (when joint legal custody is appropriate despite parental animosity)
- Fear v. Rogers, 207 Mich. App. 642 (tax dependency exemption may be treated as child support or property)