Schneider v. Schneider, Docket No. 7423 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 1971) — Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Vera C. Schneider obtained a judgment of divorce from William E. Schneider. After the divorce judgment, plaintiff petitioned the trial court for an increase in child support payments specified in that judgment and sought an order requiring defendant to pay for certain orthodontic work allegedly needed for one of the children. The trial court granted a partial increase — $2.00 per week per child — but denied the request that defendant pay for the prospective orthodontic treatment. Plaintiff obtained leave to appeal the partial denial. The appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals is from the Washtenaw County trial court (Judge Robert W. McIntyre). The opinion is per curiam. Counsel of record for plaintiff: Douvan, Harrington Carpenter.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was error for the trial court, in increasing child support, to consider defendant's remarriage and the financial obligations arising from that remarriage when determining the amount of increase.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order defendant to pay for proposed orthodontic work for one of the children when the record did not establish the necessity of that work.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Plaintiff contended that it was error for the trial court to take into account defendant's remarriage and the obligations following that remarriage in determining the child support increase. Plaintiff cited Renn v. Renn (1947), 318 Mich. 230, and Hensinger v. Hensinger (1952), 334 Mich. 344 in support of that contention.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments asserted by the defendant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the trial court's decision to increase child support by $2.00 per week per child and to deny the request for orthodontic payment. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by considering defendant's remarriage and related obligations when adjusting support, relying on Renn and Hensinger. The appellate court explained that those cases hold remarriage and obligations arising from it are not a proper basis for reducing support payments. However, the appellate court distinguished the present situation: the trial court considered defendant's remarriage and additional family obligations not as a justification to reduce the support obligation, but as facts relevant to the defendant's ability to pay a larger amount. The court cited Herpolsheimer for the proposition that a parent's ability to pay is an appropriate factor in determining the amount of child support. Regarding the orthodontic expense, the appellate court observed that the trial record did not establish that the orthodontic work was necessary; because the necessity was not demonstrated, the trial court did not err in denying the petition to compel defendant to pay for prospective dental work.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED (but without costs).

Consequences for the parties: the trial court's increase of child support by $2.00 per week per child is affirmed, and the denial of plaintiff's request that defendant pay for the proposed orthodontic work is affirmed because the record did not establish necessity. The court denied costs to the prevailing party because the defendant did not file a brief. The opinion addresses the application of prior authority but does not announce or purport to establish any new legal precedent beyond applying existing principles regarding consideration of a parent's ability to pay and the need for proof of necessity for medical/dental expenses.