Bradley D Bachman v. Shelley M Snowgold, 329892

Parties divorced in 2009; in 2015 plaintiff (Bachman) moved to reduce child support after increased parenting time. Defendant (Snowgold) served broad requests for financial documents.
Plaintiff produced some materials but objected to or failed to produce numerous requested items (tax returns partly, check registers, profit/loss details, lists of business expenses/suppliers, etc.).
Defendant moved to compel production; the trial court granted the motion, ordered specific documents produced (including unredacted W-2s/1099s, 24 months of checkbook registries, profit/loss statements, lists of business expenses, and an amended sworn answer), and awarded attorney fees.
Trial court first awarded $1,055, then on reconsideration (after detailed billing) awarded $2,155 to defendant for fees incurred prosecuting the motion to compel.
Plaintiff threatened appeal; the court then awarded defendant $1,500 prospectively as a flat appellate-fee retainer.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award for the motion to compel (finding MCR 2.313(A)(5)(a) applicable and the award reasonable) but reversed the prospective award of appellate attorney fees and remanded for further proceedings on that point.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney fees were properly awarded for bringing the motion to compel	Bachman: motion to compel was improper/unnecessary; he had complied as appropriate; court misapplied MCR 2.313	Snowgold: plaintiff failed to fully comply with discovery; motion to compel was proper under MCR 2.313	Court: Fee award under MCR 2.313(A)(5)(a) was proper — plaintiff’s discovery noncompliance necessitated the motion
Whether the amount awarded ($2,155) was reasonable	Bachman: amount was excessive	Snowgold: submitted local billing survey and billing detail; fees reasonable	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered Smith factors and local billing data; award reasonable
Whether defense counsel misrepresented possession/completeness of documents at hearing	Bachman: defense misled court about what documents it already had and plaintiff had produced	Snowgold: statements were not misleading; gaps remained and responses/objections were inadequate	Court: Plaintiff’s allegations of misrepresentation were unpersuasive; record supports court’s findings
Whether trial court could award prospective appellate attorney fees	Bachman: appellate fees cannot be awarded in advance of an appeal	Snowgold: relied on authority allowing appellate fees in domestic cases	Court: Prospective award was improper; remanded to permit determination of necessity/reasonableness only after appeal is actually taken

Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 499 Mich 544 (appellate standard: abuse of discretion for fee awards)
Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (framework for assessing reasonableness of attorney fees: local rate × hours then adjust)
Schoensee v Bennett, 228 Mich App 305 (appellate fees may be awarded in domestic relations matters but does not authorize prospective awards)