Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 552 / Act 295 of 1982
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.603b (2026)

Retroactive correction of support amount.

✓ 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


552.603b Retroactive correction of support amount.

Sec. 3b.

    If an individual who is required by the court to report his or her income to the court or the office of the friend of the court knowingly and intentionally fails to report, refuses to report, or knowingly misrepresents that income, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the court may retroactively correct the amount of support.

History: Add. 1996, Act 367, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: Kirk Jon Bush v. Lori Lynn Bush (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kirk Jon Bush v. Lori Lynn Bush (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “He claims that he is instead entitled to retroactive modification of spousal support dating back to January 1, 2018, based on the language of MCL 552.603b and defendant’s failure to comply with the 10% provision set out in the judgment of divorce.”
Jeffrey William Kidder v. Laura Sue Pobursky-Kidder (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “But it was premature for the trial court to determine that a retroactive modification of child support was warranted under MCL 552.603b before the evidentiary hearing was completed.”
Marvin James Bruski v. Joanna Ruth Moja (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “The court also rejected defendant’s argument that support should be retroactive under MCL 552.603b, concluding that there was no evidence to support that plaintiff misstated his income with the knowledge and intent required by MCL 552.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “There is no allegation against Kirsten in this regard. David’s conduct, however, raises this implication.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “There is no allegation against Kirsten in this regard. David’s conduct, however, raises this implication.”
John Britton Gordon v. Claire Schrom Gordon (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Claire Gordon did not specifically challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rate 3 MCL 552.603b provides an exception to this rule.”
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.