- 12 -
of unjust enrichment. Estate of McCallum v. First State Bank,
supra.
Petitioner contends that a debt arose when the Circuit Court
held that the private agreement between petitioner and Ms.
Thiellesen was void and unenforceable because parents may not
bargain away a child’s right to support under Michigan law. See
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. sec. 722.3 (West 2002); Wiersma v. Wiersma,
217 N.W. 767, 768 (Mich. 1928); Ballard v. Ballard, 198 N.W.2d
451, 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). Petitioner argues that he paid a
total of $41,244 as purported child support pursuant to the
private agreement, but that the Circuit Court characterized only
$6,892 of the total payments as tantamount to child support,
calculated arrearages against petitioner, and then reinstated
petitioner’s $75 weekly child support obligation. As a result,
petitioner contends that the payments were not intended as a
gift, but were advance payments to Ms. Thiellesen. Petitioner
thus claims that Ms. Thiellesen is unjustly enriched because he
relied on her “to uphold her end of their contract, which she
failed to do, resulting in Petitioner having to pay for a second
time the amount of $34,352.00” as child support pursuant to the
Circuit Court’s order, and, therefore, he is entitled to
restitution in the amount of $34,352. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011