ROBERT L TOMPKINS V JUDITH M TOMPKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT L. TOMPKINS,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 193777
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 90-388785
JUDITH M. TOMPKINS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly, and Young, JJ.
MICHAEL J. KELLY, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court’s failure to address the circumstances supporting
plaintiff’s motion for modification of alimony was an abuse of discretion. It certainly would have been
appropriate for the trial court to reopen proofs on remand but, more importantly, the court did not
revisit the motion for modification after it’s ruling on remand. The last three paragraphs of the court’s
January 26, 1996 order states as follows:
In the alternative, plaintiff requests that the court allow plaintiff to seek retroactive
modification of the judgment of divorce. The court will deny the request at this time
pending the court’s ruling on the alimony issue addressed by the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen proofs is denied.
It is so ordered.
The majority is persuaded that the plaintiff could have availed himself of the trial court’s implied
promise to revisit the modification issue without abandoning his appeal. Plaintiff’s counsel answers that
seeking such an alternative would have resulted in no relief and would have exposed him to assessment
of costs. That is a reasonable surmise.
I would remand for hearing on the modification question to determine if a change in
circumstances supports modification. If so, I believe such modification should be retroactive as to do
otherwise would be inequitable.
-1
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
