Lee v. Smith
871 N.W.2d 873
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff sought child support when the parties’ son was 18 and a full-time high‑school student expected to graduate.
- Trial court ordered defendant to pay $580/month from Aug 7, 2013 to May 31, 2014 while the son attended high school.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to order post‑majority support absent a parental agreement and that MCL 552.605b did not authorize the award.
- The appeal required statutory interpretation of MCL 552.605b, added to the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act in 2001 in response to Smith v Smith.
- The trial court found the statutory requirements for post‑majority support under MCL 552.605b(2) were satisfied; defendant did not challenge those factual findings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may order child support after a child turns 18 when the child is a full‑time high‑school student | Lee: The court may order support under MCL 552.605b(2) for an 18–19½‑year‑old attending high school | Smith: Courts lack authority to impose post‑majority support absent an agreement between the parents | The court held MCL 552.605b(2) authorizes courts to order support for an 18–19½‑year‑old meeting the statute’s conditions; affirmed the support order |
| Whether MCL 552.605b(5) limits Subsection (2) so that court orders are only permissible if parties agreed to post‑majority support | Lee: Subsection (5) governs enforceability of agreements and does not limit Subsection (2)’s independent grant of authority | Smith: Subsection (5) precludes judicial imposition of post‑majority support absent party agreement | The court rejected Smith’s reading: (5) addresses enforceability of agreements and does not negate the court’s independent authority under (2) |
| Whether a prior judgment or order must exist before a court may grant post‑majority support | Lee: Not argued as a barrier in this case | Smith: Court may only grant support if provision exists in an existing order/judgment | Court treated this argument as abandoned because defendant provided no authority or explanation on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Driver v. Naini, 490 Mich 239 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (statutory language construed in context and given ordinary meaning)
- Smith v. Smith, 433 Mich 606 (courts lacked authority to order post‑majority support absent agreement)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 281 Mich App 575 (agreement to post‑majority support enforceable)
- Aussie v. Aussie, 182 Mich App 454 (agreement to provide post‑majority support enforceable)
- Rowley v. Garvin, 221 Mich App 699 (legislative response to Smith via MCL 552.16a)
- Lafarge Midwest, Inc. v. Detroit, 290 Mich App 240 (clear statutory language is enforced as written)
- People v. Likine, 492 Mich 367 (legislature presumed aware of judicial interpretations)