Cymbal v. Cymbal

Cymbal v. Cymbal, 204 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: October 26, 1972
Judges: Danhof, Bronson, Burns
Citations: 204 N.W.2d 23543 Mich. App. 5661972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1063

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The parties were divorced on June 20, 1969. The judgment provided that the defendant was to pay child support in the amount of $75 per week for each of the parties’ three children. The defendant subsequently sought to have the judgment modified by reducing the amount of support. The trial court entered an order reducing the amount of support to $50 per week for each of the children and the plaintiff has appealed. We reverse.

The defendant’s argument for a reduction in support was based on the contention that his income had dropped substantially. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that income was not the only relevant factor and sought to compel a full financial disclosure. The trial court ruled that income was the only relevant factor and refused to consider any other aspects of the defendant’s finances. This ruling constitutes reversible error. A modification of a child support order must be based on changed circumstances.

Biddulph v Biddulph, 23 Mich App 105 (1970);

Stros v Stros, 25 Mich App 154 (1970). This means that all relevant circumstances must be considered. The defendant is an active businessman who is involved in complicated financial affairs. A failure to consider the defendant’s financial status as a whole is clear error.

Travis v Travis, 19 Mich App 128 (1969).

*568 We also believe that the defendant failed to carry his burden of proof in showing changed circumstances. The record establishes only that the defendant’s income may have fallen. The defendant refused to produce a full financial disclosure. In a proper case a reduction in income may be sufficient grounds for modifying a judgment. Indeed, in some cases a reduction in income would compel a modification. This case is not one involving a wage earner with no substantial assets. We have a businessman involved in complicated dealings. The defendant has revealed part of his finances and deliberately concealed the rest. He cannot be said to have carried his burden of proof.

The order appealed from is reversed and the original judgment is reinstated. Costs to the plaintiff.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts14

Relies on it most ⓘ

McCarthy v. McCarthy253 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)
Zammitt v. Zammitt308 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
Jacobs v. Jacobs324 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)
Graybiel v. Graybiel297 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)
Beverly v. Beverly317 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
Maier v. Brablec336 N.W.2d 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)

Most recent

Good v. Armstrong554 N.W.2d 14 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
Malnar v. Malnar401 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
Maier v. Brablec336 N.W.2d 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
Madden v. Madden336 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
Jacobs v. Jacobs324 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)
Beverly v. Beverly317 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Travis v. Travis, 172 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)	14
	Stros v. Stros, 181 N.W.2d 26 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)	7
	Biddulph v. Biddulph, 178 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)	2

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list