Estate of Mary Lee Fishman-Piku v. Stephen Piku Jr
328023
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Mary Lee Fishman-Piku, by personal representative Kathleen Murawski) sought attorney fees incurred pursuing separate maintenance; Exhibit 25 (stipulated) itemized $46,650 in fees.
- After a lengthy pretrial process and a 14-day trial, the trial court awarded plaintiff $25,000 in attorney fees.
- Defendant (Stephen Piku, Jr.) did not cross-examine plaintiff’s witness about the fee exhibit or otherwise contest the reasonableness of the fees at trial.
- Post-judgment, defendant moved for relief arguing he was denied a hearing on contested fees and that the trial court failed to expressly find the fees “reasonable.”
- Judge Kelly (concurring in part and dissenting in part) would affirm the judgment without remand, finding the reasonableness issue was not contested and the record supported the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand required for trial court to determine reasonableness of awarded attorney fees | Fee reasonableness was shown by stipulated Exhibit 25 and testimony; no remand needed | Trial court failed to expressly find fees "reasonable" and defendant lacked a fair hearing on contested facts | No remand — reasonableness was not disputed and record supports award |
| Whether defendant forfeited or waived challenge to fees | Plaintiff relied on stipulated exhibit and testimony; defendant had opportunity to challenge but did not | Defendant claims due process required a contested evidentiary hearing | Forfeiture/waiver: defendant failed to timely contest fees, so issue was waived/forfeited |
| Whether trial court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing on attorney-fee reasonableness | No hearing required absent a party specifically requesting one when fees are not contested | A hearing was required to resolve disputed factual issues under due process | No hearing required here because defendant never specifically requested one and did not contest the fees at trial |
| Whether record supported the fee award (amount and basis) | Stipulated itemization and witness testimony provided evidentiary basis; trial court reduced requested amount | Defendant contends trial court did not make an explicit reasonableness finding | Record sufficiently supported the award; trial court’s reduction indicates consideration of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v Parks, 303 Mich. App. 552 (party cannot stipulate and then challenge that stipulation on appeal)
- Mitchell v Mitchell, 198 Mich. App. 393 (trial court must hold evidentiary hearing only if a party specifically requests one to resolve ambiguities)
- Reed v Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (when requested attorney fees are contested, trial court must hold hearing to determine services rendered and reasonableness)
- Reed Estate v Reed, 293 Mich. App. 168 (waiver defined as intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- Kernen v Homestead Dev Co, 252 Mich. App. 689 (failure to request an evidentiary hearing can constitute forfeiture; documentation may suffice)
- Hisaw v Hayes, 133 Mich. App. 639 (due process requires fair trial and determination of disputed factual questions)
- Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich. App. 462 (trial court need not cite every piece of evidence; record must allow appellate review)
- Charles A Murray Trust v Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28 (trial court is presumed to know and properly apply the law)