William Stumpe v. Deborah Stumpe
330000
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 27, 2017Background
- Parties divorced after ~3 years; one child; prenuptial agreement resolved many property issues; child’s primary residence with Deborah in Michigan.
- Plaintiff (William) lived in Colorado; defendant was an unemployed, stay-at-home mother receiving monthly child support for three children as her only income.
- Plaintiff filed a December 2013 motion to modify parenting time; nine-day hearing across 2014–2015; trial court denied the motion; this Court later affirmed the custody decision on appeal.
- During the litigation defendant repeatedly requested attorney fees under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) (unable to pay; other party able to pay); trial court awarded multiple fee orders against plaintiff.
- Three fee orders are appealed: (1) $1,895 (Aug 14, 2015), (2) $10,000 appellate retainer (Aug 24, 2015), and (3) $1,782.50 (Oct 13, 2015).
- Trial court found defendant could not be required to use child support (earmarked for children) to pay her fees; plaintiff did not meaningfully contest his ability to pay and declined to dispute fee reasonableness in two matters; an evidentiary hearing was held on the $10,000 appellate retainer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant proved inability to pay and plaintiff’s ability to pay under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) | Deborah had substantial child support and minimal expenses; therefore she could pay fees; plaintiff’s wealth not determinative | Deborah is unemployed; child support is for children and should not be invaded to pay her fees; William has ability to pay | Court: defendant unable to use child support to pay fees; plaintiff did not contest ability to pay; award proper |
| Whether trial court erred by not holding hearings on fee reasonableness for two awards ($1,895 and $1,782.50) | Trial court should have held evidentiary hearings to establish reasonableness | Plaintiff never actually contested the amounts below or requested hearings | Court: no error—plaintiff failed to challenge reasonableness below, so no hearing required |
| Whether $10,000 appellate retainer was unreasonable | No showing $10,000 is customary or reasonable in Michigan | Appellate counsel testified $10,000 is the minimum retainer he charges for such appeals | Court: trial court held hearing, heard counsel’s testimony, plaintiff declined cross-examination; $10,000 found reasonable |
| Whether trial court lacked authority to award prospective appellate fees before they were incurred | Fees were not yet incurred because appeal pending; court lacked authority | Retainer was necessary to retain appellate counsel and thus constituted an incurred expense | Court: retainer was an incurred expense necessary to retain counsel; award authorized under MCR 3.206(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. Richards, 310 Mich App 683 (review standard for domestic-relations fee awards)
- Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (burden to prove attorney fees were incurred and reasonable; contested fees require hearing)
- Smith v. Smith, 278 Mich App 198 (MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a) fee-award standard)
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich App 706 (burden to prove amount and reasonableness of fees)
- Myland v. Myland, 290 Mich App 691 (may not require invasion of support payments to pay attorney fees)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (fee-reasonableness framework applying Wood and MRPC 1.5(a))
- Wood v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 (factors for fee reasonableness)
- Riemer v. Johnson, 311 Mich App 632 (distinction between MCR 3.206(C)(2) and MCR 2.403(O); application of Wood/MRPC factors to 3.206 awards)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471 (recognizing appellate fees recoverable under MCR 3.206(C))
- Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich 211 (issues not raised below are not ordinarily reviewed on appeal)