Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17 (2026)

Revision and alteration of judgment concerning care, custody, maintenance, and support of children; enforceability of order.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846

R.S. of 1846

552.17 Revision and alteration of judgment concerning care, custody, maintenance, and support of children; enforceability of order.

Sec. 17.

(1) After entry of a judgment concerning annulment, divorce, or separate maintenance and on the petition of either parent, the court may revise and alter a judgment concerning the care, custody, maintenance, and support of some or all of the children, as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children require.

(2) An order concerning the support of a child of the parties is governed by and is enforceable as provided in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650. If this act contains a specific provision regarding the contents or enforcement of a support order that conflicts with a provision in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650, this act controls in regard to that provision.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 84 ;-- CL 1857, 3238 ;-- CL 1871, 4749 ;-- How. 6239 ;-- CL 1897, 8632 ;-- CL 1915, 11408 ;-- CL 1929, 12739 ;-- CL 1948, 552.17 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 243, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 1990 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 291, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 1990 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 9, Eff. June 1, 1996 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 107, Eff. Sept. 30, 2001

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Divorce

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 123 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Burba v. Burba, 610 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burba v. Burba, 610 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 18× “96 (allowing order of support pursuant to divorce); MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97 (allowing postjudgment alteration of support); MCL 552.”

Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz, 912 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 7× “31(4) of the CCA, rather than under MCL 552.17, an additional interpretive step was necessary to connect Lemmen 's statement about child support modification to the dispute over domicile at issue here.”

Kosch v. Kosch, 592 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97; Nellis v. Nellis, 211 Mich.”

Lemmen v. Lemmen, 749 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 8× “28 provides: On petition of either party, after a judgment for alimony or other allowance for either party or a child, or after a judgment for the appointment of trustees to receive and hold property for the use of either party or a child, and subject to [MCL 552.17], the court…”

Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz, 909 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court, arguing that under MCR 7.208(A)(4), the trial court was not limited by the pending appeal from considering modification of the divorce judgment "as otherwise provided by law.”

Crego v. Coleman, 615 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 4× “222(5)(1) explains the process through which predivorce temporary support orders may be modified; MCL 552.17(1); MSA 25.97(1) explains the process through which support orders entered pursuant to divorce may be modified by motion of the parties; and M.”

Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “The Burba Court concluded that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty under MCL 552.17 (now found in MCL 552.605[2]) by not articulating, in writing or on the record, the amount of child support it would have ordered had it followed the child support formula and how the…”

Crego v. Coleman, 591 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “MCL 552.17(1); MSA 25.97(1). We see no difference between the state's interest in settlement and finality in divorce proceedings and those same interests in actions under the Paternity Act that would justify treating children born outside marriage any differently than children…”

Lorenz v. Lorenz, 419 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97. Rutledge v Rutledge, 96 Mich App 621, 624 ; 293 NW2d 651 (1980).”

Clarke v. Clarke, 823 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “According to MCL 552.17(1), 4 a child support order may be modified by the trial court “upon a showing by the petitioning party of a change in circumstances sufficient to justify [the] modification.”

Barnes v. Jeudevine, 718 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “Because this judgment is res judicata of the issue as between Charles and defendant, defendant would have to take additional action (for instance, bringing a motion to revise or alter the judgment under MCL 552.17[1]) in order for the status quo to be altered and Charles to be…”

Hagbloom v. Hagbloom, 247 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “Michigan law provides for modification of orders for child support so as "to accord with the welfare of the child within the means and ability of the father".”

Show all 123 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17(1) — 29 cases

Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz, 912 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 2018). “31(4) of the CCA, rather than under MCL 552.17, an additional interpretive step was necessary to connect Lemmen 's statement about child support modification to the dispute over domicile at issue here.”

Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz, 909 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court, arguing that under MCR 7.208(A)(4), the trial court was not limited by the pending appeal from considering modification of the divorce judgment "as otherwise provided by law.”

Lemmen v. Lemmen, 749 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. 2008). “28 provides: On petition of either party, after a judgment for alimony or other allowance for either party or a child, or after a judgment for the appointment of trustees to receive and hold property for the use of either party or a child, and subject to [MCL 552.17], the court…”

Crego v. Coleman, 615 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. 2000). “222(5)(1) explains the process through which predivorce temporary support orders may be modified; MCL 552.17(1); MSA 25.97(1) explains the process through which support orders entered pursuant to divorce may be modified by motion of the parties; and M.”

Crego v. Coleman, 591 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 552.17(1); MSA 25.97(1). We see no difference between the state's interest in settlement and finality in divorce proceedings and those same interests in actions under the Paternity Act that would justify treating children born outside marriage any differently than children…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17(2) — 7 cases

Burba v. Burba, 610 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2000). “96 (allowing order of support pursuant to divorce); MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97 (allowing postjudgment alteration of support); MCL 552.”

Kosch v. Kosch, 592 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97; Nellis v. Nellis, 211 Mich.”

Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “The Burba Court concluded that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty under MCL 552.17 (now found in MCL 552.605[2]) by not articulating, in writing or on the record, the amount of child support it would have ordered had it followed the child support formula and how the…”

Calley v. Calley, 496 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Nathan v. Ehrhart (In Re Ehrhart), 155 B.R. 458 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17(2)(d) — 1 case

Burba v. Burba, 610 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2000). “96 (allowing order of support pursuant to divorce); MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97 (allowing postjudgment alteration of support); MCL 552.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17(3) — 1 case

Kosch v. Kosch, 592 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 552.17; MSA 25.97; Nellis v. Nellis, 211 Mich.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.17(a) — 1 case

Henry v. Henry, 326 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.