Schneider v. Schneider

Michigan Court of Appeals

Schneider v. Schneider

186 N.W.2d 17, 30 Mich. App. 124, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2173

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 1971

DocketDocket 7423

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 186 N.W.2d 17 (Schneider v. Schneider) 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

Schneider v. Schneider, 186 N.W.2d 17, 30 Mich. App. 124, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2173 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*125 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff petitioned the trial court for an increase of child support payments specified in a judgment of divorce and for an order requiring defendant to pay for certain orthodontic work allegedly required by one of the children. The trial court granted an increase of $2 per week per child in the support payments but declined to order defendant to pay for the orthodontic work. On leave granted, plaintiff appeals.

In determining the amount of increase in child support payments, the trial court gave consideration to the facts that defendant had remarried, had one child by the remarriage, and expected a second child therefrom. Plaintiff contends this was error and cites Renn v. Renn (1947), 318 Mich 230, and Hensinger v. Hensinger (1952), 334 Mich 344. Neither case is authority for plaintiff’s contention. Both cases held that the husband’s remarriage and the obligations arising therefrom were not basis for reducing support payments.

In the present case, the trial court considered these factors in determining how much more defendant could pay. His ability to pay is one of the factors considered in determining the amount of child support awarded. Herpolsheimer v. Herpolsheimer (1947), 318 Mich 200.

The record before the trial court did not establish the necessity for the orthodontic work. It was not error to deny plaintiff’s petition with respect to payment for this prospective dental work.

Affirmed but without costs, defendant not having filed a brief.

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

*125 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff petitioned the trial court for an increase of child support payments specified in a judgment of divorce and for an order requiring defendant to pay for certain orthodontic work allegedly required by one of the children. The trial court granted an increase of $2 per week per child in the support payments but declined to order defendant to pay for the orthodontic work. On leave granted, plaintiff appeals.

In determining the amount of increase in child support payments, the trial court gave consideration to the facts that defendant had remarried, had one child by the remarriage, and expected a second child therefrom. Plaintiff contends this was error and cites Renn v. Renn (1947), 318 Mich 230, and Hensinger v. Hensinger (1952), 334 Mich 344. Neither case is authority for plaintiff’s contention. Both cases held that the husband’s remarriage and the obligations arising therefrom were not basis for reducing support payments.

In the present case, the trial court considered these factors in determining how much more defendant could pay. His ability to pay is one of the factors considered in determining the amount of child support awarded. Herpolsheimer v. Herpolsheimer (1947), 318 Mich 200.

The record before the trial court did not establish the necessity for the orthodontic work. It was not error to deny plaintiff’s petition with respect to payment for this prospective dental work.

Affirmed but without costs, defendant not having filed a brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 17, 30 Mich. App. 124, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-schneider-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack