Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.603a (2026)

Failure to pay support; surcharge; calculation; assessment; collection; enforcement.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

SUPPORT AND PARENTING TIME ENFORCEMENT ACT

Act 295 of 1982

552.603a Failure to pay support; surcharge; calculation; assessment; collection; enforcement.

Sec. 3a.

(1) Subject to subsection (6), for a friend of the court case, if the court determines that the payer has failed to pay support under a support order and the failure was willful, the court may order that on January 1 and July 1 of each year, a surcharge be added to support payments that are past due as of those dates. The surcharge shall be calculated at 6-month intervals at an annual rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer. The amount of the surcharge shall not compound. The amount shown as due and owing on the records of the friend of the court as of January 1 and July 1 of each year shall be reduced by an amount equal to 1 month's support for purposes of assessing the surcharge. Except as provided in subsection (5), a surcharge ordered by the court applies until abated by the court.

(2) A surcharge ordered under subsection (1) shall be assessed on a semiannual cycle on January 1 and July 1 of each year except as otherwise provided under subsection (3).

(3) A surcharge shall not be assessed for the current semiannual cycle in any of the following circumstances:

(a) Beginning on July 1, 2005, in a case in which the friend of the court is collecting on a current child support obligation and the payer has paid 90% or more of the most recent semiannual obligation during the semiannual cycle.

(b) In a case in which a support order is entered after July 14, 2004, for any period of time a support order did not exist if support is later ordered for that period.

(4) A surcharge added under this section shall be collected and enforced by any means authorized under this act, the friend of the court act, or another appropriate federal or state law for the enforcement and collection of child support and paid through the state disbursement unit.

(5) A surcharge ordered under this section in an order entered before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection is terminated on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection. Another surcharge shall not be ordered in the action unless the surcharge is ordered by the court under subsection (1).

(6) After the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, a court shall not order that a surcharge under subsection (1) be added before January 1, 2011.

History: Add. 1995, Act 141, Eff. Jan. 1, 1996 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 120, Imd. Eff. Mar. 6, 1996 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 572, Eff. Dec. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 276, Eff. Jan. 15, 2004 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 208, Imd. Eff. July 14, 2004 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 193, Eff. Dec. 31, 2009

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2004 · leading case: People v. Monaco, 686 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Monaco, 686 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “MCL 552.603a. This surcharge is added to a child support payor’s arrearage every six months.”

People v. Law, 591 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 1999). “*431 MCL 552.603a; MSA 25.164(3a). Just as providing for statutory interest in the 1987 amendment indicated the Legislature’s expression of what constituted the appropriate amount of compensation for the lost use of child support payments, this latest amendment indicates the…”

Adams v. Linderman, 624 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff argues that the trial court lacked authority to waive past and future surcharges imposed on defendant’s child support arrearage, given the mandatory language contained in MCL 552.603a; MSA 25.164(3a). 2 We find merit in plaintiff’s argument and accordingly reverse the…”

In Re Newton, 606 N.W.2d 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “According to petitioners, this amount was ordered to be withheld from respondent’s wages from his employment at the Arrow Door Company; however, because of the eight percent surcharge on overdue support payments imposed by MCL 552.603a; MSA 25.164(3a), the entirety of the $15 a…”

Wayne Cnty. Soc. Servs. Dir. v. Yates, 681 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “4 The lower court record contains no indication of whether any order of surcharge for late support payments was entered pursuant to MCL 552.603a. Whether any such order was entered and, if so, what the effect might he on the running of the period of limitations are not…”

People v. Monaco, 686 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “MCL 552.603a. This surcharge is added to a child support payor's arrearage every six months.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.603a(1) — 2 cases

People v. Monaco, 686 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 552.603a. This surcharge is added to a child support payor’s arrearage every six months.”

People v. Monaco, 686 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 552.603a. This surcharge is added to a child support payor's arrearage every six months.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.603a(2) — 1 case

Adams v. Linderman, 624 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Plaintiff argues that the trial court lacked authority to waive past and future surcharges imposed on defendant’s child support arrearage, given the mandatory language contained in MCL 552.603a; MSA 25.164(3a). 2 We find merit in plaintiff’s argument and accordingly reverse the…”

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.