Stephanie Kathleen Kaeb v. Darin Lee Kaeb
333599
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by consent judgment (2010); extensive postjudgment litigation over parenting time, custody, and support followed (2011–2013).
- Defendant filed motions in March 2013 (motion to clarify parenting-time order) and August 2013 (to remove AA and counseling requirements); plaintiff sought fees as frivolous or for improper purpose.
- Trial court originally awarded plaintiff $2,090 in fees for the August 2013 motion but removed counseling conditions; defendant appealed leading to Kaeb I.
- In Kaeb I, this Court reversed the MCR 2.114(D)(2) fee award (finding defendant showed proper cause) and remanded without deciding whether MCR 2.114(D)(3) sanctions could apply.
- On remand plaintiff renewed fee requests under MCR 2.114(D)(2) and (D)(3), and MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) and (b); after an evidentiary hearing the trial court awarded $27,651.97 to plaintiff.
- Defendant appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on scope of remand, laches, and each fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand — could trial court reconsider fee award under MCR 2.114(D)(3)? | Kaeb argued remand left open consideration of MCR 2.114(D)(3) and trial court may address it. | Darin argued reconsideration exceeded the appellate mandate. | Court: Remand left the MCR 2.114(D)(3) question open; trial court did not exceed scope. |
| Laches — was plaintiff’s 2016 fee motion barred by delay? | Kaeb argued earlier fee requests and post-remand filings preserved claims; no prejudice to defendant. | Darin argued plaintiff delayed and thus laches barred the later motion. | Court: No laches — defendant failed to show prejudice from any delay. |
| Sanctions under MCR 2.114(D)(2) for March 2013 motion | Kaeb sought fees for defending a baseless motion to clarify parenting time. | Darin argued motion had basis and plaintiff did not show fees directly tied to that motion. | Court: Upheld award — motion was without legal basis; trial court reasonably allocated fees using itemized bills. |
| Sanctions under MCR 2.114(D)(3) for August 2013 motion | Kaeb argued motion was filed for improper purpose (harassment, financial threats). | Darin contended mutual motion practice negates finding of improper purpose. | Court: Upheld award — record showed harassment and improper purpose. |
| Fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(b) for failure to comply with discovery | Kaeb sought fees for defendant’s failure to produce 2012 tax returns per court order. | Darin claimed he filed a protective order and did not willfully refuse production. | Court: Upheld award — protective order was filed late and unsupported; noncompliance justified fees. |
| Fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) based on inability to pay | Kaeb argued she could not pay fees (debt, lower income, reliance on support) and Darin could. | Darin pointed to Kaeb’s 2013 income exceeding fees and claimed he could not pay due to tax timing. | Court: Upheld $20,000 award — court weighed incomes, debt, living costs, and ability to pay; Kaeb found unable to pay while Darin able. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaeb v. Kaeb, 309 Mich. App. 556 (court of appeals decision reversing initial MCR 2.114(D)(2) award)
- Schumacher v. Dep’t of Natural Resources (After Remand), 275 Mich. App. 121 (remand-mandate compliance reviewed de novo)
- Grievance Administrator v. Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235 (court may address matters left open on remand)
- Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (trial court must make factual findings about reasonableness of attorney fees)
- Myland v. Myland, 290 Mich. App. 691 (MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) — fees necessary to enable party to prosecute or defend)
- Loutts v. Loutts (After Remand), 309 Mich. App. 203 (income exceeding fees not dispositive of inability to pay)
- Knight v. Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich. App. 109 (application of laches requires prejudice to defendant)