Divorce; Business valuation; Rebuttal evidence; MRE 402 & 403; Harmless error; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Civil contempt; Appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.202(6); MCR 7.203(A); Attorney fees for noncompliance with a court order; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding plaintiff-ex-wife’s rebuttal evidence concerning the value of the parties’ business, but properly excluded her separate expert valuation testimony. It also held that it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal as of right from the civil-contempt attorney-fee award. The trial court valued the parties’ cleaning business at $512,000 based on defendant-ex-husband’s expert testimony and used that valuation in calculating an equalization payment. Plaintiff sought to present a CPA to rebut that valuation and another CPA to provide her own valuation, but the trial court excluded both. On appeal, the court concluded that excluding the rebuttal evidence was error because although exclusion may be appropriate where evidence is irrelevant or cumulative, “the trial court never determined whether plaintiff’s proposed rebuttal testimony . . . would have been irrelevant or cumulative.” Thus, to “disallow plaintiff’s evidence without proper findings under the rules of evidence was error.” The error was not harmless. While plaintiff cross-examined defendant’s expert and challenged his valuation in closing, “those opportunities do not substitute for plaintiff’s ability to present her own evidence.” By hearing only one side’s valuation evidence, “the trial court essentially made a credibility determination after only hearing one side’s evidence.” But the court upheld exclusion of plaintiff’s separate valuation expert because she relied on unsigned tax returns and plaintiff’s statements rather than a formal valuation, and plaintiff failed to establish that her proposed testimony satisfied MRE 702’s reliability requirements. As to the separate contempt appeal, the court noted that “‘an order finding a party in civil contempt of court is not a final order for purposes of appellate review.’” Because the $25,000 attorney-fee award for violating court orders was compensatory civil contempt, “this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the award as an appeal of right.” The court dismissed the contempt appeal, and as to the divorce judgment, affirmed in part, vacated the business valuation and resulting equalization payment, and remanded.