Attorney fees in a domestic relations action; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b); Colen v Colen; Refusal to comply with court order; Child support arrearage; Richards v Richards; Reasonableness hearing; Kernen v Homestead Dev Co; Abandoned issue; Cassidy v Cassidy

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees incurred because of his failure to comply with the child-support order. After the divorce judgment and support order were entered, defendant fell more than $51,000 behind in child support, and was found in contempt. The trial court later determined after an evidentiary hearing that he had the ability to pay the arrearage in a lump sum. On appeal, the court held that attorney fees were proper under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) because that subrule applies when fees “were incurred because the other party refused to comply with a previous court order, despite having the ability to comply[.]” The court emphasized that MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) focuses on “‘a party’s behavior, without reference to the ability to pay[,]’” and exists to “‘shift the costs associated with wrongful conduct to the party engaging in the improper behavior[.]’” Because defendant did not dispute that he violated the child-support order, had exhausted appellate remedies on the contempt order, and did not challenge the evidentiary-hearing ruling except as to fees, the requirements of the rule were satisfied. The court also held that no separate evidentiary hearing on reasonableness was required because defendant never objected to plaintiff’s bill of particulars, never requested a hearing, and argued only financial hardship rather than that the fees were unreasonable. The uncontested billing materials were sufficient to support the award. Affirmed.