Edge v. Edge
299 Mich. App. 121
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Consent judgment in 2008 audi joint custody; 2010 circuit order awarded plaintiff sole legal/physical custody and reduced defendant's parenting time; defendant appealed; this Court affirmed and taxed costs to defendant; plaintiff sought appellate attorney fees/costs arguing frivolous appeal; circuit court awarded $14,398.27 as sanctions under improper basis; DeWald held such appellate sanctions improper; this Court reverses the circuit court's award.
- Circuit court relied on MCR 2.114, MCR 2.625(A)(2), MCR 3.206(C), MCR 7.208(1), and MCL 600.2591 but this was incorrect; appellate costs must be governed by MCR 7.219, MCR 7.216(C), and MCL 600.2445; the decision to sanction was an abuse of discretion.
- DeWald v Isola (After Remand), 188 Mich App 697 (1991) held circuit court cannot award appellate costs under MCR 2.114, MCR 2.625(A)(2), or MCL 600.2591.
- This Court distinguished frivolous filings from vexatious appellate proceedings and clarified that sanctions for vexatious appeals fall under MCR 7.216(C) and related appellate rules, not trial-court sanctions under the cited statutes/rules.
- Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc, 208 Mich App 556 (1995) held trial court lacked jurisdiction to tax appellate costs.
- The opinion notes that DeWald and Reeves limit trial courts from awarding appellate costs except under proper appellate-rule authority, which this circuit court failed to utilize.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to award appellate attorney fees | Edge argues sanctions were authorized under MCR 2.114/MCR 2.625/MCL 600.2591 | Edge asserts appellate fees were improper under those rules/stats | Abused discretion; not authorized under cited rules/statute |
| Role of MCR 3.206(C) and MCR 7.208(1) | Plaintiff relied on these to justify appellate sanctions | Defendant contends not proper basis for appellate fees | Abused discretion; improper basis for award |
| Applicability of DeWald v Isola | DeWald supports trial-court sanctions for frivolous filings | DeWald does not authorize appellate-fee awards in this context | DeWald controls; cannot award appellate fees under those provisions |
| Authority under MCL 600.2591 vs appellate rules | § 2591 authorizes sanctions for frivolous actions | Appellate conduct not within §2591 scope | §2591 not applicable to appellate proceedings; sanctions improper under it |
| Distinction between vexatious appellate proceedings and frivolous claims | Frivolous appeal justifies sanctions | Vexatious appellate standard not satisfied here | Sanctions improper; only vexatious-appeal standards apply at appellate level |
Key Cases Cited
- DeWald v Isola (After Remand), 188 Mich App 697 (1991) (cannot award appellate costs under MCR 2.114, 2.625(A)(2), or MCL 600.2591)
- Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc., 208 Mich App 556 (1995) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to tax appellate costs)
- FMB-First Mich. Bank v. Bailey, 232 Mich App 711 (1998) (sanctions under MCR 2.114(E) are discretionary for trial courts)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (Rule 11 sanctions not extend to appellate-scope like Rule 38; limits of sanctions)
- Keinz v. Keinz, 290 Mich App 137 (2010) (discusses abuse-of-discretion standard in fee awards)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich 372 (2006) (court’s inherent power to sanction; limits on fee awards)