Gregory D Hanley v. Pamela Ann Seymour, 334400

Background

Parties divorced by consent; a 2011 stipulated protective order barred use or disclosure of personal/business financial discovery material except for the litigation, and the 2012 divorce judgment barred deliberate contacts with the other party’s clients, adversaries, and business associates and forbade disparagement to them.
After the divorce, defendant (Seymour) filed a grievance against plaintiff (Hanley) using information from discovery; the grievance was dismissed.
In 2015 plaintiff’s wife was sued by her former stepson (Sachs); Sachs was represented by counsel. Defendant contacted Sachs’s attorney by phone and mailed a letter and documents that contained disparaging allegations about Hanley and Hanley’s wife, including 2011 emails obtained during discovery.
Handwriting expert and testimony linked the mailed letter and communications to defendant; defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment at the contempt hearing and did not testify.
The trial court found defendant willfully violated the protective order and the divorce judgment, held her in criminal contempt, and imposed 93 days’ jail, a $7,500 fine, $15,000 in attorney fees to plaintiff, and $2,625 in costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding competent evidence of willful disobedience, that criminal contempt was appropriate, and that the sanctions (including attorney fees) were permissible and supported by the record/procedural posture.

Issues

Issue	Hanley’s Argument	Seymour’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for contempt	Evidence (letter, emails, testimony, handwriting opinion) shows Seymour sent disparaging, protected material to an adversary and willfully violated orders	No prior contempt; most disparaging statements targeted Hanley’s wife; lacked proof Seymour knew Hanley was involved or that Sachs’s counsel was an adversary	Affirmed — competent evidence supports willful disobedience and contempt finding
Criminal vs civil contempt characterization	Conduct was a completed act vindicating court authority (criminal contempt)	Implicitly disputed characterization	Affirmed — criminal contempt appropriate; procedures followed and burden beyond reasonable doubt applied
Severity of sanctions (jail, fine)	Sanctions were within statutory limits and aimed to preserve court authority	Punishment excessive for a first offense; no proof of adverse consequences to Hanley	Affirmed — sanctions not an abuse of discretion given egregious conduct and court’s remedial aims
Attorney-fee award as indemnity	Fees compensatory for loss; plaintiff’s counsel charged a $15,000 flat fee; Seymour did not challenge reasonableness below	Argues Hanley failed to prove existence/reasonableness of fees	Affirmed — fee award permitted under statute; Seymour failed to object or request hearing, so issue not preserved
Mediation confidentiality / unclean hands	Communications at issue were not mediation communications; Sachs’s attorney had received them before mediation	Argues Hanley disclosed mediation materials, violating confidentiality rule	Affirmed — record shows materials were not protected mediation communications

Key Cases Cited

In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich. App. 656 (discussing standard of review for contempt findings)
In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich. App. 96 (contempt authority and purposes; imprisonment for violating orders)
In re Contempt of Robertson, 209 Mich. App. 433 (courts’ inherent and statutory contempt powers)
Kirby v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 459 Mich. 23 (obligation to obey court orders notwithstanding claimed error)
In re Contempt of Rochlin, 186 Mich. App. 639 (distinction between criminal and civil contempt)
Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich. App. 450 (criminal contempt burden — proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Richards v. Richards, 310 Mich. App. 683 (authority to order attorney fees for contempt losses)
Taylor v. Currie, 277 Mich. App. 85 (attorney fees under contempt statutes must compensate actual loss)
Jansen v. Jansen, 205 Mich. App. 169 (objections to fee reasonableness cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Snider v. Dunn, 33 Mich. App. 619 (trial court may take judicial notice of the record)