FOC’s failure to apply SCRF — which clearly was incorrect, given the fact that the Recommendation upon which the 2/22/06 support order was based, clearly did apply SERF. With all due respect to defendant's honorable, experienced, and competent prior legal counsel, the ball was dropped in this case__ It is clear that what happened was that defendant's legal counsel didn’t look through the file (probably because different attorneys from the same firm handled the file at different times), wast''l familiat with the file, wasn't familiar with the nature of the problem or the basis for relief, and simply filed a motion (and then an amended motion) for the sake of “doing something” to keep their client happy. [his is neither fair nor right, and whatever it is or is not, it isn't justice. | Defendant is being required, and has been required, to pay support based upon nonexistent income. WHEREFORE, defendant prays for entry of an order setting aside the post judgment support orders, and resetting defendant's child support obligation based upon his actual earnings, and tor such other relief as is appropriate. ROSE & ROSE, PLC Dated: June e, 2009 By: mas M. Rose (P-26592) \ttorney for Defendant 8787 Ferry Street P.O. Box 235 Montague, MI 49437 Phone: (231) 894-9088 Fax. (231) 893-0006 DIV-CLurecki Motion.040809 jlv.doo 7