734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

DIVORCE 15: Recovery of attorney fees on the basis of misconduct.

In this case, plaintiff and defendant, both attorneys, were married in 1973. The marriage produced two children who were adults at the time of the divorce. In the early 2000s, plaintiff lost approximately $1 million in investments when the stock market crashed. The parties agreed at trial that the initial collapse of their marriage coincided with the loss. However, they also provided extensive testimony regarding their respective perspectives on the subsequent breakdown of their relationship, including the fact that the couple stopped sharing a marital relationship at least 10 years prior to trial. At some point, plaintiff began engaging in a long-term affair with Person J, whom he secretly supported financially for several years prior to the divorce.

The trial court ultimately ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $68,452.60 in attorney fees.  Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by entering an order for attorney fees related to his misconduct concerning his support of Person J.

It is well-settled that attorney fees are generally not recoverable as of right in divorce cases—fees may only be awarded when authorized by statute, court rule, contract, or common-law exception.  At issue in this case is the common-law exception permitting recovery of attorney fees on the basis of misconduct. Under this exception, an award of legal fees is authorized where the party requesting payment of the fees has been forced to incur them as a result of the other party’s unreasonable conduct in the course of the litigation.

To award fees on the basis of misconduct, the trial court must determine that misconduct, in fact, occurred and that the misconduct caused the party seeking fees to incur the fees awarded. The party requesting fees bears the burden of proving that the fees were incurred and that the fees requested are reasonable. A party may not merely present a billing statement for approval under this exception; rather, he or she must demonstrate by documentation and testimony what charges can be attributed to the other party’s misconduct.

The trial court found that certain charges submitted by defendant were supported by testimony and other record evidence.  By way of example, the trial court awarded attorney fees incurred with respect to defendant’s motion for substitute service of a subpoena directing Person J to appear for a deposition. Billing entries explicitly referred to the motion by name. In addition, it was testified that the motion was necessary because Person J was avoiding service, and her testimony was required to demonstrate the falsity of plaintiff’s assertion concerning the extent of his support.  The trial court did evaluate each entry individually, accepting some, rejecting others, and reducing the amount for some charges to reflect that not all of the time spent was occasioned by plaintiff’s misconduct.  The trial court found that the services reflected in the billing entries it approved were incurred as a result of plaintiff’s misconduct during discovery.

At the Plymouth law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys have the skill and experience you need to address all family law issues that may arise during your divorce, including:

  • Property division
  • Spousal support
  • Division of property

We are committed to providing each of our clients with quality legal representation and superior service. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced divorce lawyer at our firm, contact our Michigan law office.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405