Gerlach v. Gerlach

Gerlach v. Gerlach, 267 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 17, 1978
Docket: No. 31194
Judges: Cavanagh, Holbrook, Beasley
Citations: 267 N.W.2d 14982 Mich. App. 6051978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2252

Cited by 3

Opinion — Beasley

Beasley, J.

Defendant-appellant petitioned for reduction in alimony under a 1966 divorce judgment. After hearing, the trial judge filed an opinion denying a reduction. Defendant-appellant appeals as of right.

The gist of appellant’s claim is that a change in circumstances has occurred whereby his income is lessened.

There is no question that plaintiffs needs remain and that her economic situation has not significantly improved. Defendant’s claim that she could improve her economic situation by remarrying is, of course, without merit; she has no such obligation and any consideration of that factor is irrelevant.

It may be that defendant’s income is less than at the time of the divorce, but, if it is, the trial court’s finding that defendant’s unemployment is largely self-imposed finds support in the evidence. Under these circumstances, voluntary reduction in income is not a proper basis for reduction in alimony.

There was no abuse of discretion here.

Affirmed.

Prettyman v Prettyman, 348 Mich 206 ; 83 NW2d 475 (1957), Pohl v Pohl, 13 Mich App 662 ; 164 NW2d 768 (1968).

Moncada v Moncada, 81 Mich App 26; 264 NW2d 104 (1978), Smith v Smith, 299 Ky 715; 187 SW2d 271 (1945), Ellenstein v Ellenstein, 210 Minn 265; 297 NW 848 (1941).

Hettiger v Hettiger, 37 Mich App 431 ; 195 NW2d 10 (1971).

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts3

Relies on it most ⓘ

Couzens v. Couzens364 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
Dunn v. Dunn307 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
Weaver v. Weaver431 N.W.2d 476 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

Most recent

Weaver v. Weaver431 N.W.2d 476 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
Couzens v. Couzens364 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
Dunn v. Dunn307 N.W.2d 424 (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 7

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Pohl v. Pohl, 164 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)	11
	Moncada v. Moncada, 264 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)	11
	Hettiger v. Hettiger, 195 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)	5
	Brown v. Sioux Bldg. Corp., 83 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 1957)	4
	Prettyman v. Prettyman, 82 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. 1957)	2
	Ellenstein v. Ellenstein, 297 N.W. 848 (Minn. 1941)	2
	Smith v. Smith, 187 S.W.2d 271 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945)	1

`/`	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