Sandra Hart Rogal v. Raymond Joseph Rogal
332516
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Rogal divorced Rogal in 2006; they shared joint custody and defendant paid $1,800/month child support with automatic increases if income exceeded $250,000.
- In 2015 child-support and defendant’s current income were referred to the Friend of the Court; plaintiff moved for attorney fees for both her divorce counsel and a corporate/business attorney to analyze defendant’s business structures.
- At a hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $10,000 to plaintiff’s divorce attorney and $12,000 for a business expert; defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Plaintiff offered only oral statements about fee amounts (attorney “requires $15,000,” attorney said owed >$12,000; expert retainer claimed $15,000 or $12,000) but produced no billing or reasonableness documentation.
- Plaintiff did not provide documentary evidence of her income/expenses to show financial need, nor documentary proof of defendant’s ability to pay despite alleging lavish spending in bank records without supporting proof.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the attorney-fee awards and remanded for plaintiff to present evidence to meet her burden under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved entitlement to attorney fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) | Plaintiff claimed inability to pay and need for counsel and a business expert to assess complex business income | Defendant contested fees and sufficiency of proof of plaintiff’s need and his ability to pay | Vacated fee awards: plaintiff failed to prove both her financial need and defendant’s ability to pay |
| Whether plaintiff proved reasonableness and amount of requested fees | Plaintiff gave oral statements about required retainers/owed amounts for attorneys and expert | Defendant argued no documentation or billing showing services rendered or reasonableness | Vacated: court required documentary proof and a hearing to determine services rendered and reasonableness |
| Whether a business expert was necessary to determine defendant’s income | Plaintiff asserted need to understand defendant’s “intricate business structures” to detect unreported income | Defendant argued the only issue was amount of income; sources irrelevant absent proof of unreported income | Vacated: plaintiff failed to show necessity of expert or evidence of unreported income |
| Whether the trial court properly stopped defendant’s counsel from further challenging the ruling | N/A (not advanced as central) | Defendant objected to being cut off at hearing | Court noted the interruption but decision rested on lack of proof; remand for proper proceedings implied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich. App. 706 (award of attorney fees in divorce requires showing need and other party’s ability to pay)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Kidder v. Ptacin, 284 Mich. App. 166 (legal error as basis for abuse of discretion)
- In re Forfeiture of $19,250, 209 Mich. App. 20 (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (necessity of hearing to determine services rendered and reasonableness of contested fees)