Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 54: The trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing or allowing her to support her request.

This case arises from the dissolution of plaintiff and defendant’s marriage. Defendant was a stay-at-home parent for the parties’ two children during the majority of the marriage. The children were adults at the time of the separation and divorce. The trial court determined that plaintiff owed defendant $107,112 as a property equalization award, and awarded defendant $1,500 per month in spousal support for a period of 10 years, at which time defendant would become eligible for social security income. The trial court’s denied defendant’s request for attorney fees. Defendant now appeals.


Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for a hearing regarding attorney fees and by denying her request for attorney fees. We agree. The trial court must provide a reasoned basis for its discretionary decision regarding attorney fees. Attorney fees are authorized by statute and by court rule in a divorce action.  The trial court has authority to order a party’s payment of the other party’s attorney fees during the pendency of the divorce case. MCL 552.13(1). MCR 3.206(D)(1).   In this case, after the close of proofs but before the trial court issued its oral opinion, defendant requested a hearing regarding attorney fees because “it was impossible to determine, at the time of the trial, the amount of attorney’s fees that were generated by [sic] client and to give the court an understanding as to how much attorney fees my client has paid.” The trial court indicated that proofs were closed and that the parties waived closing arguments. The trial court also indicated that the issue regarding attorney fees was not addressed during the bench trial. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a hearing regarding attorney fees and declined to address whether defendant was entitled to attorney fees. After the trial court issued its oral opinion, defendant requested that the value of her property award be adjusted from $145,000 to $125,000 to reflect her debt of $20,000 in attorney fees. The trial court indicated that defendant failed to raise the issue of attorney fees before the close of proofs and that it would not address whether defendant was entitled to attorney fees. The trial court ordered each party to pay their respective attorney fees. Defendant’s request for attorney fees was timely under MCL 522.13(1) because it was made during the pendency of the divorce proceeding and before the trial court gave its oral opinion regarding the divorce judgment, rather than after the entry of an order that resolved the last pending claims and closed the case. Defendant’s request for attorney fees was also timely under MCR 3.206(D) because a request for attorney fees under this court rule can be made “at any time.” MCR 3.206(D)(1). Therefore, the trial court had authority to award defendant attorney fees at the time of defendant’s request under MCL 522.13(1) and MCR 3.206(D). Defendant testified during the bench trial that she had a credit card balance of $2,000 for legal fees in this case. Defendant also testified that she borrowed approximately $20,000 from her sister to pay for attorney fees in this case, although there were no loan documents. The lower court record also supports that defendant’s salary was $22,000 per year in 2018 before taxes and payroll deductions and that plaintiff’s income was $210,000 in 2018. Defendant was not required to invade her assets that she relied on for support or to invade the property award in order to pay attorney fees to defend this action. These facts support defendant’s request for attorney fees on the basis of defendant’s inability to pay to defend the divorce proceeding and plaintiff’s ability to pay. By failing to hold a hearing or to allow defendant to support her request for attorney fees, the trial court did not render a decision on the basis of the particular facts and circumstances regarding the parties’ financial situations and the equities involved. Accordingly, the trial court failed to provide a reasoned basis for its denial of defendant’s request for attorney fees and remand is required to permit the parties to develop the factual record and allow the trial court to consider defendant’s request and to exercise its discretion in the first instance.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you are in the midst of a divorce.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000


PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000