Sanctions; Imposition of an attorney-fee award against a party’s counsel; MCR 1.109(E); MCL 600.2591(1); Notice; Opportunity to be heard; Entry of the judgment; MCR 2.602(B); Statutory interest; MCL 600.6013(8); Whether detailed billing records supported the claim for fees; Smith v Khouri; Admission of a billing summary; Limitation on cross-examination; MRE 611

The court held that the trial court’s inclusion of defendant-Frye-Chaiken’s attorney (appellant-Powers) “on the judgment for sanctions, jointly and severally with Frye-Chaiken and her prior attorneys, did not fall outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Further, the judgment complied with MCR 2.602(B)(1) and there was no error in “including statutory interest in the attorney-fees award.” The court also determined “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting plaintiffs’ exhibit 1 or limiting the scope of the cross-examination of” their attorney at the evidentiary hearing as to the attorney fee request. The underlying case involved breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. The trial court granted plaintiffs summary disposition and found “that Frye-Chaiken’s counter-claims and defenses were frivolous. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a judgment for sanctions against Frye-Chaiken, Powers, and Frye-Chaiken’s three prior attorneys, jointly and severally.” The court concluded that “Powers was not required to be joined as a party to the action to be subject to sanctions, nor was he insulated from sanctions simply by his late involvement. He appeared on behalf of Frye-Chaiken, signed trial court filings, and appeared in court on behalf of Frye-Chaiken. Michigan law supports the imposition of joint and several liability for attorney fees and costs.” The court additionally noted it “has indicated that it is unnecessary to establish a causal connection in imposing sanctions under MCL 600.2591.” The court rejected Powers’ assertions that he lacked notice he could be held liable for sanctions and that he was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard about their imposition. The record showed “the trial court expressly warned Powers that his representation of Frye-Chaiken would subject him to liability for sanctions. And [plaintiffs] specifically asked for $16,430 in attorney fees to be imposed against Frye-Chaiken ‘and her attorneys in accordance with MCR 1.109(E), MCR 2.625, and MCL 600.2591.’” Further, the trial court conducted “an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of the parties submitting evidence, allowed the parties to submit their closing arguments in writing, and considered (but ultimately denied) Powers’ post-judgment motions.” Affirmed.