MONICA D FANT V GARY L FANT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MONICA D. FANT,
UNPUBLISHED
February 21, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 238452
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 00-018645-DM
GARY L. FANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J. and White and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right the judgment of divorce entered after a bench trial. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues that in setting the amount of child support for the parties’ son, the trial
court abused its discretion in considering plaintiff’s payment of college expenses for the parties’
post-majority daughter. We disagree. The burden is on the party appealing a child support order
to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Kosch v Kosch, 233 Mich App 346, 350;
592 NW2d 434 (1999). A trial court may not, on its own, impose a post-majority child support
obligation on a party. McNames v McNames, 93 Mich App 477, 479-481; 286 NW2d 892
(1979). However, parties may agree to pay post-majority support, and such agreements are
enforceable. Wagner v Wagner, 105 Mich App 388, 392-394; 306 NW2d 523 (1981).
MCL 552.605(2)1 provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order support
in an amount determined by application of the child support formula developed by
the state friend of the court bureau as required in section 19 of the friend of the
court act, MCL 552.519. The court may enter an order that deviates from the
formula if the court determines from the facts of the case that application of the
child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets forth in writing or
on the record all of the following:
1
These provisions were formerly set forth in MCL 552.16(2).
-1-
(a) The support amount determined by application of the child support
formula.
(b) How the support order deviates from the child support formula.
(c) The value of property or other support awarded instead of the payment
of child support, if applicable.
(d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be
unjust or inappropriate in the case.
The trial court did not consider an impermissible factor in deviating from the child
support formula where defendant acknowledged an agreement to share in his daughter’s college
expenses. The court complied with MCL 552.605(2) in stating a valid reason why the
application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate. The court did not abuse its
discretion in determining the amount of child support.
Affirmed
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
