Attorney fees; Domestic relations action; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b); Refusal to comply with a court order; Richards v Richards; Reasonableness of fees; Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n; Judicial notice; MRE 201; Parenting time noncompliance

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant’s counsel $4,742 in attorney fees arising from plaintiff’s repeated noncompliance with parenting-time orders. The parties’ domestic-relations dispute involved child support and parenting time. Plaintiff repeatedly failed to present the child for exchanges, leading to multiple contempt motions or show-cause proceedings. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court merely adopted another judge’s decision to award fees because the record showed that the first judge only directed defense counsel to file a bill of costs and “did not indicate that those costs would be simply adopted,” while the second judge heard plaintiff’s objections, examined the history of noncompliance, and applied the reasonableness factors. The court next held that fees were proper under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) because plaintiff “did not abide by the visitation schedule” and “unilaterally decided on numerous occasions” not to produce the child for parenting time. The court further rejected plaintiff’s ability-to-pay argument because MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) addresses fees incurred when a party refuses to comply with a court order, and that rule “does not consider the party’s ability to pay, but only the party’s behavior.” Finally, the court held that the amount awarded was reasonable because the trial court considered the Pirgu factors, including counsel’s experience, reputation, fixed rate, difficulty of the case, length of representation, preclusion from other work, expenses incurred, and a reduction in the actual hours claimed. Plaintiff’s repeated parenting-time violations caused defendant to incur fees, and the trial court’s factual findings were not erroneous. Affirmed.