Jason Broadrick v. Debra Broadrick
333213
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Jason Broadrick) appealed a trial-court award of attorney fees to the Law Offices of Donald DeLong, PC (DeLong).
- DeLong sought postjudgment attorney fees; the trial court awarded DeLong the full requested amount.
- Broadrick argued the trial court erred by awarding fees without holding an evidentiary hearing and by refusing to consider documentary evidence he submitted.
- Broadrick submitted e-mails and an unsigned affidavit suggesting: (1) DeLong overbilled because much work was done by Broadrick’s sister (also an attorney), and (2) DeLong continued probate litigation despite knowing the estate lacked assets.
- The trial court referenced the Smith/Wood and Kennedy factors in assessing reasonableness but declined to consider Broadrick’s unsigned affidavit and stated his bills lacked substantively admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by deciding fee award without an evidentiary hearing | Broadrick: court should have held a hearing to resolve contested fees and evidence | DeLong: sufficient documentary record existed so hearing was unnecessary | Court: No plain error — hearing not required because parties created sufficient record and Broadrick failed to timely request a hearing |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider Broadrick's documentary evidence | Broadrick: e-mails and affidavit (although unsigned) were admissible documentary evidence showing overbilling and unreasonable litigation | DeLong: bills were not supported by substantively admissible evidence; plaintiff’s affidavit was improper | Court: Reversed — trial court abused discretion by ignoring Broadrick’s e-mails and other non‑notarized documentary evidence; remand for reconsideration |
| Whether lack of notarization of Broadrick’s affidavit barred consideration of other documentary evidence | Broadrick: other documents (e-mails) did not require notarization and should have been considered | DeLong: relied on trial court’s characterization that plaintiff’s evidence was not substantively admissible | Court: Notarization defect removed affidavit but court still had to consider non‑notarized documentary evidence; failure to do so was error |
| Whether remand affects Broadrick’s motion for reconsideration and request for appellate damages | Broadrick: sought relief including damages under MCR 7.216(C) and reconsideration | DeLong: opposed award; procedural defaults apply | Court: Remanded for further fee determination; motion for reconsideration moot; request for appellate damages denied (no proper motion filed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (standard: burden to prove reasonableness of requested fees and factors for fee reasonableness)
- Souden v Souden, 303 Mich App 406 (attorney may recover fees under agreement; postjudgment fees must be incurred and reasonable)
- John J Fannon Co v Fannon Prod, LLC, 269 Mich App 162 (hearing not required if record supplies sufficient evidence to determine fees)
- Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (when fees are contested, trial court ordinarily should hold a hearing to determine services rendered and reasonableness)
- Head v Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc., 234 Mich App 94 (no abuse where parties created sufficient record and court explained decision)