Schmidt v. Schmidt

Michigan Court of Appeals

Schmidt v. Schmidt

193 N.W.2d 383, 36 Mich. App. 185, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1298

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 1971

DocketDocket 11985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 N.W.2d 383 (Schmidt v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmidt v. Schmidt, 193 N.W.2d 383, 36 Mich. App. 185, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1298 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals the dismissal of his motion to amend the alimony provision of a judgment of divorce. The parties were divorced in May 1967, by a judgment which awarded plaintiff alimony of $75,000 to be paid in 125 monthly pay *186 ments of $600 each, commencing on June 10, 1967. Defendant filed the present action on February 5, 1971, seeking amendment of the divorce judgment to eliminate the monthly payments, alleging a change in his financial circumstances.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss or affirm on the ground that the appeal does not present a substantial question. Defendant has filed a motion for reduction of alimony pending appeal.

The trial court correctly ruled that it could not amend or modify the judgment of divorce to reduce or eliminate the payment of alimony in gross provided by the original judgment. Edgar v. Edgar (1962), 366 Mich 580; Kutchai v. Kutchai (1926), 233 Mich 569. The courts cannot modify such an alimony in gross provision embodied in a final judgment except on a showing of fraud. Ferrera v. Ferrera (1969), 16 Mich App 661, 662; Edgar v. Edgar, supra. Defendant does not allege fraud. Defendant’s complaint failed to state any ground for relief and was properly dismissed.

We find that the question presented is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission. Defendant’s motion for reduction of alimony is denied for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals the dismissal of his motion to amend the alimony provision of a judgment of divorce. The parties were divorced in May 1967, by a judgment which awarded plaintiff alimony of $75,000 to be paid in 125 monthly pay *186 ments of $600 each, commencing on June 10, 1967. Defendant filed the present action on February 5, 1971, seeking amendment of the divorce judgment to eliminate the monthly payments, alleging a change in his financial circumstances.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss or affirm on the ground that the appeal does not present a substantial question. Defendant has filed a motion for reduction of alimony pending appeal.

The trial court correctly ruled that it could not amend or modify the judgment of divorce to reduce or eliminate the payment of alimony in gross provided by the original judgment. Edgar v. Edgar (1962), 366 Mich 580; Kutchai v. Kutchai (1926), 233 Mich 569. The courts cannot modify such an alimony in gross provision embodied in a final judgment except on a showing of fraud. Ferrera v. Ferrera (1969), 16 Mich App 661, 662; Edgar v. Edgar, supra. Defendant does not allege fraud. Defendant’s complaint failed to state any ground for relief and was properly dismissed.

We find that the question presented is unsubstantial and requires no argument or formal submission. Defendant’s motion for reduction of alimony is denied for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.W.2d 383, 36 Mich. App. 185, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-schmidt-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack