912 N.W.2d 511
Mich.2018Background
- Zaid Safdar and Donya Aziz divorced; the judgment awarded joint legal custody and sole physical custody of the minor child to Aziz.
- Aziz appealed only the trial court’s denial of her attorney-fee motion to the Court of Appeals; while that appeal was pending, she moved in the trial court to change the child’s domicile.
- The Oakland Circuit Court (Langton, J.) denied the domicile-motion, reasoning MCR 7.208(A) barred modifying a final judgment while an appeal was pending and that Lemmen v. Lemmen did not apply to domicile changes.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Lemmen’s reasoning about continuing jurisdiction for support orders also applied to child custody and domicile challenges.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review in lieu of leave, addressed whether MCL 722.27(1)(c) (Child Custody Act) constitutes an "otherwise provided by law" exception to MCR 7.208(A)(4), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may consider a motion to change a child’s domicile while the underlying divorce judgment is on appeal | Safdar: trial court lacked jurisdiction under MCR 7.208(A) and must not modify a final judgment while an appeal is pending | Aziz: the Child Custody Act (MCL 722.27(1)(c)) grants continuing jurisdiction to modify custody/domicle despite a pending appeal | The Court held MCL 722.27(1) authorizes continuing jurisdiction to modify custody/domicile and is an "otherwise provided by law" exception to MCR 7.208(A)(4). |
| Source of continuing jurisdiction for domicile motions: MCL 552.17 v. MCL 722.27 | Safdar: Lemmen’s reliance on MCL 552.17 governs continuing jurisdiction (support context) and should not extend to custody/domicile | Aziz: jurisdiction derives from the Child Custody Act itself (MCL 722.27) | The Court held the more specific statute MCL 722.27(1) supplies continuing jurisdiction for custody/domicile matters and vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion that relied on MCL 552.17. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemmen v. Lemmen, 481 Mich 164 (2008) (held statutory continuing jurisdiction over support orders satisfies MCR 7.208(A)(4) and serves child welfare needs)
- Grange Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 (2013) (custody order controls a minor child’s domicile under common law and the CCA)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 US 639 (2012) (when two statutes apply, the specific governs over the general)
- Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp., 448 Mich 178 (1989) (de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)