Divorce; Attorney fees; Postjudgment parenting-time litigation; MCR 3.206(D); Financial need; Evidentiary hearing; Harmless error; Safdar v Aziz

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-ex-wife’s request for attorney fees. After the parties’ divorce, plaintiff-ex-husband moved to modify parenting time, defendant repeatedly requested attorney fees, and the trial court denied the fee request after the court peremptorily reversed the parenting-time modification. On appeal, the court found that even if the trial court erred by denying the request without explanation, any error was harmless because defendant did not submit adequate evidence of financial need. The court explained that a party seeking fees under MCR 3.206(D) cannot rely on “unsubstantiated assertions” but must demonstrate an inability to bear the expense with evidence. Defendant provided the 2020 Economics of Law Summary and counsel’s curriculum vitae, but no proof of her own income or plaintiff’s income beyond her own statements. The court also rejected her argument that an evidentiary hearing was required because defendant had access to proof of her own income and failed to provide it. Affirmed.