Riemer v. Johnson
311 Mich. App. 632
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parents (Andrew Riemer and Christa Johnson) are unmarried professionals; child AJR born April 1, 2011. Parties litigated custody, parenting time, child support, and attorney fees after relationship ended.
- Trial court found an established custodial environment with both parents and weighed MCL 722.23 best-interest factors (some favoring Riemer, one favoring Johnson, several neutral).
- Court awarded joint legal custody and shared physical custody with a phased increase in father’s parenting time toward approximately equal time.
- Trial court computed child support using averaged tax-year income (father’s AGI very high; mother’s substantially lower) and assigned tiered monthly support amounts over time; treated some temporary orders as retroactively modifiable.
- Trial court awarded Johnson contribution toward attorney and expert fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2), fashioned a proportional “war chest” allocation based on parties’ incomes, and required substantial payments by Riemer.
Issues
| Issue | Riemer’s Argument | Johnson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody/best-interest findings | Trial court erred as to factors (b),(d),(f),(g); findings against great weight of evidence | Trial court’s findings supported by evaluator and witnesses | Affirmed; findings not against great weight and shared custody not an abuse of discretion |
| Parenting-time phased implementation | Court relied improperly on mother’s distress; parenting time should follow child’s best interest without undue deference to parent distress | Phased increase necessary for smooth transition; trial court was authorized to order gradual changes | Affirmed; gradual increase supported by expert testimony and not a modification requiring separate hearings |
| Child support calculation & retroactivity | Should have deviated downward from MCSF given father’s high income; retroactive modification of temporary order improper | Depreciation and some tax items properly treated; court intended temporary orders to be retroactive | Affirmed; court complied with MCSF, no improper downward deviation, depreciation treatment not clear error, nunc pro tunc retroactivity acceptable |
| Attorney-fee award procedure & reasonableness | (Riemer) not preserved; (Johnson) court should have applied detailed Smith v Khouri analysis | Trial court properly applied MRPC 1.5 and Wood factors and fashioned proportional award under MCR 3.206(C)(2) | Affirmed; Smith procedure inapplicable to MCR 3.206 awards and fee amounts were within reasonable range |
Key Cases Cited
- Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 291 Mich. App. 660 (appellate standard for custody findings) (trial court findings affirmed unless against great weight of the evidence)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (standards for review of custody and discretionary rulings)
- Kessler v. Kessler, 295 Mich. App. 54 (established custodial environment analysis)
- Mogle v. Scriver, 241 Mich. App. 192 (custodial environment determination precedes custody decision)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (trial court may assign differing weights to best-interest factors)
- Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 276 Mich. App. 424 (standard of review and child support formula jurisprudence)
- Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich. App. 666 (review of factual findings in child support determinations)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 272 Mich. App. 511 (MCSF manual strict compliance and statutory construction)
- AFSCME v. Detroit, 468 Mich. 388 (interpretation limits on reading non-textual deviations into statutes)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich. 519 (procedural requirements for awarding reasonable fees under case-evaluation sanctions)
- Wood v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins. Exch., 413 Mich. 573 (factors for determining reasonable attorney fees)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (abuse-of-discretion review and reasonable-outcome standard)