Denial of motion for a determination & enforcement of a prior sanctions award without conducting a hearing; Preservation requirements for appellate review; Burden of proving the reasonableness of requested attorney fees; Smith v Khouri; Denial of request for attorney fees

The court found that defendants failed to preserve their argument about the necessity of a hearing on their motion for a determination and enforcement of a prior sanctions award, and that they were not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as their fee request was unopposed. It further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying them attorney fees. The case arose from a no-fault action filed by plaintiff “for the collection of assigned insurance benefits.” Defendants successfully moved for summary disposition, and the trial court granted their request for sanctions “with the caveat that the amount of sanctions to be awarded must be pursued by a separate (supported) motion within 28 days of the entry date of this Opinion and Order or” they would be deemed abandoned. Defendants later unsuccessfully “filed two uncontested motions for the determination and enforcement of sanctions” (only the first was filed within the 28-day period). They never requested a hearing in the trial court as to the determination and enforcement of the prior sanctions award, and even if the court overlooked the preservation requirements, their contention as to the necessity of an evidentiary hearing lacked merit. They presented evidence to the trial court in an effort “to meet their burden to establish the reasonableness of the requested attorney fees. However, plaintiff did not oppose the fee request and did not request an evidentiary hearing to contest the evidence” they presented. Thus, the trial court did not plainly err in denying their motion without conducting a hearing. Limiting its analysis to their initial motion, the court noted that they did not offer any evidence as to “the skill involved in litigating the matter, the likelihood that acceptance of the employment precluded other employment by the attorneys, the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, or the professional standing and experience of the attorneys. Most notably, defendants failed to present any evidence regarding the fee customarily charged in that locality for similar services.” Affirmed.