Attorney fees, postjudgment; MCR 3.206(D); Richards v Richards; Spousal support modification; Changed circumstances; Luckow v Luckow; Summary disposition procedure; MCR 2.116(C)(8)–(10); Lockwood v Twp of Ellington

The court held that the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s postjudgment requests for attorney fees and for additional spousal support because (1) summary disposition was not available on the procedural posture asserted, (2) she failed to substantiate fees under MCR 3.206(D), and (3) she failed to show a postjudgment change in circumstances warranting modification of the parties’ modifiable 10-year support agreement. The parties divorced in 2012 after a 23-year marriage, with a judgment incorporating a separation agreement requiring $3,000 monthly spousal support for 10 years, modifiable in amount and duration. The trial court denied plaintiff’s later petitions for interim support, additional support after expiration, and attorney fees. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s oral summary-disposition theory, explaining MCR 2.116(C)(8) did not apply because defendant “was not stating any claim,” and (C)(9) and (C)(10) were inapplicable because defendant appeared at hearings and “expressly disputed” the factual allegations, making summary disposition improper where factual issues remained. The court next held plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D) because she did not supply billing statements, affidavits, itemizations, or other documentation showing the “necessity and reasonableness” of fees. She also did not demonstrate fees were incurred because of defendant’s alleged noncompliance with an order. It also noted she represented herself on the petitions at issue and did not show a need for prospective fees to “carry on” litigation. As to spousal support, the court held plaintiff bore the burden to show “new facts or changed circumstances” after the prior order. It found no error where she relied on defendant’s employment change without evidence of his overall financial condition, on missed payments that had been fully cured by lump-sum satisfaction, and on property issues previously litigated, including a prior judgment. Affirmed.