Thomas Lyons v. Shannon Lyons

── Thomas Lyons v. Shannon Lyons ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THOMAS LYONS, UNPUBLISHED May 21, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant, 11:55 AM v No. 373664 Kent Circuit Court SHANNON LYONS, LC No. 19-02379-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and LETICA and FEENEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. The sole issue in this matter, involving the calculation of child support obligations, is whether the trial court should have considered a second income earned by defendant when making that calculation. Because plaintiff did not offer any evidence regarding the amount of defendant’s second income, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the trial court’s order. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties in this matter were divorced in 2019. On February 25, 2024, a referee heard plaintiff’s objections to a Friend of the Court (FOC) child support recommendation. In part, plaintiff believed that defendant’s income may have increased since the FOC investigation. Defendant stated that she worked fulltime at a healthcare center and that she had reported her healthcare center income during the FOC investigation. She also stated that she worked “overtime” at a restaurant two weekends (20 hours) each month. The referee stated that defendant’s income from the healthcare center and restaurant should be used to calculate child support. He requested that defendant provide updated information about her income to the FOC. Defendant, in turn, complained that plaintiff was only imputed income in the amount of $12 an hour for 35 hours each week. The referee indicated that he would hold an evidentiary hearing on these issues. No evidentiary hearing was actually held. Rather, the referee held settlement conferences on April 17, 2024 and May 30, 2024, which were not held on the record. At the first conference, the referee found that $12 an hour was an appropriate income to impute to plaintiff. At the second -1- conference, the referee found that defendant had stopped working at the restaurant. He further found that defendant worked 40 hours each week, earning slightly over $20 an hour, at her regular job. This hourly amount would be used to calculate her income. On June 24, 2024, the referee signed a proposed child support order. Plaintiff objected to the proposed order. Plaintiff asserted that defendant lied about her employment at the restaurant. He believed that defendant continued to work at the restaurant. Plaintiff also objected to being imputed income at the rate of $12 an hour for 40 hours each week. He noted that, in 2022, income was imputed to him at the rate of $12 an hour for 35 hours each week and that the only change since then was that he had an additional child (with his current wife) for whom he was the primary caregiver. Plaintiff also complained that the referee did not articulate any findings on the imputation factors. In her response to the objection, defendant stated that she had not attended the settlement conferences, but that once she learned that the referee believed she was no longer employed at the restaurant, she contacted her prior attorney for clarification. The prior attorney advised defendant that she would correct the mistake. Defendant acknowledged to the court that she continued to work part-time at the restaurant. At the September 3