Kaeb v. Kaeb
309 Mich. App. 556
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Darin and Stephanie Kaeb divorced; original judgment granted joint custody with primary residence to Stephanie and extensive parenting time to Darin, later limited after concerns about Darin’s alcohol/gambling and mental-health issues.
- Subsequent stipulated and court orders (2011–2012) imposed limited supervised parenting time and required Darin to complete alcohol treatment, counseling with Dr. Brent Ellens, and attend AA; court said Darin could petition for modification after compliance.
- In mid‑2013 the trial court expanded Darin’s parenting time but continued conditions (sobriety, AA, counseling) and required motions for further changes rather than automatic reviews.
- Darin moved to remove the AA and counseling conditions, submitting a discharge letter from Ellens and a psychological evaluation from Dr. Michael Makedonsky stating no clinical need for AA/counseling.
- The trial court found Darin’s motion frivolous for lack of a change in circumstances and sanctioned him under MCR 2.114(E), ordering him to pay Stephanie’s attorney fees; the court nonetheless (on its own) removed the AA/counseling conditions.
- On appeal the court reversed the sanctions, holding the submissions provided proper cause to revisit conditions and therefore the motion was not frivolous; remand was ordered without reassignment to a new judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Darin’s motion to remove AA/counseling conditions was frivolous under MCR 2.114(D)(2) and (E) | Stephanie: motion lacked legal basis because Darin failed to show a change in circumstances required by MCL 722.27(1)(c) | Darin: expert reports and counselor discharge constituted proper cause to revisit the conditions; motion was grounded in fact and law | Reversed sanctions — the expert evidence constituted proper cause to revisit the conditions, so the motion was not frivolous under MCR 2.114(D)(2); fee award vacated |
| Whether remand should be to a different judge | Stephanie: no reassignment needed | Darin: trial judge was biased and should be recused on remand | Denied — appellate court found no evidence of trial-court bias and declined reassignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Brecht v Hendry, 297 Mich. App. 732 (discusses de novo review of statutory/rule interpretation)
- Johnson Family Ltd Partnership v White Pine Wireless, LLC, 281 Mich. App. 364 (review for clear error of factual findings underlying rule application)
- Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich. 519 (standards for reviewing discretionary sanctions)
- Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (defines proper cause/change of circumstances in custody context)
- Shade v Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (explains that Vodvarka’s stricter standard for custody does not automatically apply to parenting-time modifications)
- Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich. 654 (a rejected legal position is not automatically frivolous)
- FMB-First Mich Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich. App. 711 (trial court discretion to tailor sanctions under MCR 2.114)
- Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich. App. 599 (purpose of MCL 722.27 to minimize unwarranted custody changes)
- Bayati v Bayati, 264 Mich. App. 595 (standard for reassignment for judicial bias)