2006. The FOC recalculated the defendant's support, utilizing SERIF, and a support order was subsequently entered on March 22, 2006. Defendant's prior attorney's motion and amended motion for relief from judgment, were filed on May 22, 2007, and May 14, 2007, respectively. The amended motion was denied on August 10, 2007. 9. Pursuant to the Court’s Opinion, dated February 28, 2006, support was recalculated by the FOC (using SERF) and a Uniform Support Order was entered on March 22, 2006. This is the order for which relief from judgment is sought. That order reduced the defendant's child support from $777 per month (SERF not applied) to $554 per month (SERF applied). 10. The support order dated March 22, 2006, was still in error, and did not comply with the Judgment of Divorce, because although it had by then applied SERF, the order was based upon defendant's income with the Michigan Department of Corrections, which by then he did not have due to his continuing disability. 11. As it became apparent that defendant's disability was permanent, he sought the assistance of his prior legal counsel to correct the support order dated March 22, 2006. Eventually, his prior legal counsel got around to filing a motion seeking relief from such order. On May 2, 2007, defendant's attorney filed a motion entitled “Motion for Relief from Judgment”. There followed an “Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment” on May 14, 2007. But the problem wasn't with the Judgment. Both motions were misguided. The problem was that the support order (dated March 22, 2006), did not follow the Judgment, because the Judgment required that support be sel based upon the support schedule, and the resulting support order (dated March 22, 2006) was not based upon schedule because it utilized income figures for DIV-C Jureok Motion 48ne jtv doc ad