the Juagment, because it did not comply with the support schedule as required by the Judgment. The motion asserted that the nature of the deviation from the support schedule was that defendant was entitled to the application of SERF due to the number of parenting time overnights he had on a calendar year basis, but that the Friend of the Court had not utilized SERF. In response thereto, the Court rendered an Opinion dated February 28, 2006, which directed the Friend of the Court to recalculate child support, and stated that “the Support Order will be set in accordance with the SERF calculation dated back to the entry of Judgment”. ¢. Bath the objection (denied by the Court as untimely on January 17, 2006) and the subsequent motion (granted by the Courl on February 28, 2006) only brought to the Court's attention the fact that the Friend of the Court had failed to apply SERF. Neither the objection nor the motion brought to the Court's attention the fact that by the date of the Friend of the Court referee hearing, that defendant was no longer working for_and was on disability from the Michigan Department_of Corrections. 8. Specifically, the following dates apply. The settlement was placed on the record on June 2, 2005. Defendant left work on disability in July of 2005 and never returned. Mr. Jurecki had received short term disability and that was paid to him from July of 2005 through January of 2006. The Judgment was entered November 7, 2005. The first FOC recommendation (without SERF) was dated November 9, 2005. The defendant's objection to the recommendation was filed on January 9, 2006, and dismissed by the Court on January 17, 2006. Defendant's prior attorney's subsequently filed “Motion Re: Support’ was filed on January 18, 2006. The Court's Opinion granting the motion, to apply SERF, is dated February 8, DIV-CLiJureck Motion.040809 i. doc 3