Joel Rosenfeld v. Amy Beth Rosenfeld
333001
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Divorced couple; joint legal custody, defendant primary physical custody of three children.
- September 2013 mold problem; trial court limited children’s residence with defendant to maternal grandparents’ home.
- Defendant admitted moving children back into the house without court permission; contempt found against defendant.
- Sanctions: $500 contempt fine; issue of defendant’s attorney fees preserved for later determination.
- September 2, 2015 order stated the issue of Mr. Schnelz’s attorney fees was preserved; March 30, 2016 order removed that language.
- Plaintiff sought relief from March 30, 2016 order arguing lack of notice; trial court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relief from March 30, 2016 order was warranted given lack of notice | Rosenfeld lacked notice of the modification motion | Language removal did not prejudice plaintiff; order proper | Harmless error; affirm the denial of relief |
| Whether removal of preservation language affected future attorney-fee recovery | Schnelz fees could be pursued against defendant | Fees would not be precluded by removal of language | Removal did not bar future fee recovery; affirmed ordering |
| Whether trial court properly interpreted attorney-fee preservation under MCR 3.206 | Fees relate to defendant’s conduct and justified under rule | Fees could be pursued but not necessary to protec tion of contempt | Court correctly treated preservation language as not controlling future fee recovery; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v Auto Owners Ins Co, 274 Mich App 407 (2007) (standard for relief under MCR 2.612(C))
- Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard and reasonableness)
- Borowsky v Borowsky, 273 Mich App 666 (2007) (attorney-fee recovery for unreasonable conduct)
- Rogner v Rogner, 179 Mich App 326 (1989) (fee-shifting for obstructive conduct)