Sumerix v. Sumerix, Docket No. 51219
Decision Date | 23 April 1981 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 51219 |
Citation | 307 N.W.2d 727,106 Mich.App. 7 |
Parties | Jerry SUMERIX, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nancy E. SUMERIX, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Thomas H. Hay, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
George A. Sullivan, Mason, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before M. F. CAVANAGH, P. J., and ALLEN and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
The judgment of divorce entered in 1969 between the parties hereto awarded defendant custody of the two minor children and required plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of "$20.00 per week per child * * * until said children have attained the age of 18 years, or until the further order of the court". As neither child would graduate from high school before reaching the age of 18, defendant filed a motion to extend support payments "until said children have attained the age of 18 years or graduated from high school, whichever event shall later occur". Following the trial court's denial of the motion to extend support, defendant appeals by right.
The instant factual situation is almost identical to that in McNames v. McNames, 93 Mich.App. 477, 286 N.W.2d 892 (1979), relied upon by the trial court as authority for denial of the motion. McNames, supra, held that the Age of Majority Act, M.C.L. § 722.51 et seq.; M.S.A. § 25.244(51) et seq., negates any obligation for child support beyond age 18 absent any reservation in the original judgment of divorce of the right to extend support in the future.
The present case is clearly analogous since there was neither a prior agreement nor any reservation in the original divorce judgment for future support beyond age 18. Furthermore, as in McNames, the instant motion was filed well beyond the effective date of the Age of Majority Act. Thus, the savings clause of the Age of Majority Act, M.C.L. § 722.54; M.S.A. § 25.244(54), is not applicable, and under McNames, the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to extend support payments until the children graduate from high school.
In Johnson v. Johnson, 346 Mich. 418, 426, 78 N.W.2d 216 (1956), the Supreme Court held that a circuit court has authority to grant support only until the children attain the age of majority. Similarly, in Rybinski v. Rybinski, 333 Mich. 592, 53 N.W.2d 386 (1952), the Court held that a trial court cannot order support for a child of the parties after the child had reached her majority.
Defendant argues that the Family Support Act, M.C.L. § 552.452; M.S.A. § 25.222(2), is a legislative response to the holding in Johnson. The statute, which took effect in 1967 and was amended in 1970, provides in pertinent part:
Defendant contends that the statutory language, "or until the further order of the court", expressly authorizes the circuit courts to order child support...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Smith, Docket No. 81910
...Arndt v. Kasem, 135 Mich.App. 252, 353 N.W.2d 497 (1984), Boyd v. Boyd, 116 Mich.App. 774, 323 N.W.2d 553 (1982), Sumerix v. Sumerix, 106 Mich.App. 7, 307 N.W.2d 727 (1981), McNames v. McNames, supra, and Allen v. Allen, 63 Mich.App. 475, 235 N.W.2d 22 (1975). The only indication that appea......
-
Parrish v. Parrish, Docket No. 70781
...774, 786, 323 N.W.2d 553 (1982); Garrett v. Garrett, 108 Mich.App. 258, 260-261, 310 N.W.2d 355 (1981); Sumerix v. Sumerix, 106 Mich.App. 7, 8-9, 307 N.W.2d 727 (1981); Wagner v. Wagner, 105 Mich.App. 388, 391-394, 306 N.W.2d 523 (1981); McNames v. McNames, 93 Mich.App. 477, 481, 286 N.W.2d......
-
Gibson v. Gibson, Docket No. 53979
...628, 638-639, 204 N.W.2d 753 (1972). See also McNames v. McNames, 93 Mich.App. 477, 481, 286 N.W.2d 892 (1979); and Sumerix v. Sumerix, 106 Mich.App. 7, 307 N.W.2d 727 (1981). The primary reason stated by the trial judge for refusing to set an amount to be paid for educational expenses was ......
-
Adkins v. Adkins
...circuit courts ever have jurisdiction to order support payments beyond a child's eighteenth birthday. Compare Sumerix v. Sumerix, 106 Mich.App. 7, 307 N.W.2d 727 (1981), and McNames v. McNames, 93 Mich.App. 477, 286 N.W.2d 892 (1979), with Smith v. Smith, 163 Mich.App. 423, 426, 414 N.W.2d ......