Background
This case arose from the parties’ 2022 divorce. Plaintiff moved to modify the parenting time schedule, and the trial court granted the motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed in December 2024, finding that plaintiff failed to establish proper cause or a change in circumstances warranting modification.
On remand, defendant renewed her motion to set aside the parenting time modification and reiterated her request for attorney fees based on claimed inability to afford representation. Throughout the proceedings, defendant repeatedly requested fees but provided only unsubstantiated assertions about her income—claiming approximately $30,000 annually in 2022—without supporting financial documentation. Instead of submitting tax returns, W-2s, or other proof, she offered only the 2020 Economics of Law Summary and her counsel’s curriculum vitae. The trial court held a brief hearing and denied the fee request without explanation or an evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees. Under MCR 3.206(D), a party requesting attorney fees in a divorce action must demonstrate—not merely allege—facts showing either (1) inability to afford the action while the other party can pay, or (2) that fees resulted from the other party’s violation of court orders or discovery rules. Unsubstantiated assertions are insufficient to meet this burden.
The court rejected defendant’s argument that merely alleging financial need satisfied the rule, holding that “a party cannot rely on unsubstantiated assertions when requesting attorney fees.” Although the trial court failed to explain its denial—which the court acknowledged could constitute error—any such error was harmless because defendant failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need. Defendant had access to proof of her own income but chose not to provide it, instead making only conclusory statements. The unreliability of defendant’s position was further demonstrated by income figures that shifted between filings ($30,000, then $50,000, then back to $30,000).
Key Takeaways
- Parties seeking attorney fees in Michigan divorce proceedings must provide concrete evidence of financial inability to pay—unsubstantiated statements are legally insufficient
- A requesting party bears the burden of proving their own income and financial circumstances through documented evidence; they cannot rely on their own assertions
- While trial courts should explain their reasoning when denying fee requests, such omission is harmless error if the requesting party failed to meet their evidentiary burden
- Inconsistent income claims across filings undermine credibility and weigh against fee awards
Why It Matters
This decision establishes clear evidentiary standards for attorney fee requests in Michigan family law. It makes plain that parties cannot obtain court-ordered fees based on self-serving claims of financial hardship—they must document their income and financial circumstances with actual evidence. This protects against frivolous or exaggerated fee requests and ensures that limited judicial resources are allocated fairly.
The ruling also clarifies that procedural deficiencies—such as a trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact—do not require reversal when the underlying record demonstrates the requesting party failed to meet their legal burden. For practitioners, the decision underscores that client documentation of income, assets, and financial obligations is essential to any credible attorney fee request in divorce proceedings.