Divorce; Child custody; Parenting time; Attorney fees in a domestic relations case; Smith v Khouri; Need-based attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D)(2); MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a); Wood v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch; Myland v Myland; Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.5(a); Preclusion; The law of the case doctrine; Collateral estoppel & res judicata; Passage of time; Colen v Colen

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff-ex-husband’s motion for need-based attorney fees or an evidentiary hearing. In this divorce action, the parties filed multiple motions regarding child custody and parenting time, as well as attorney fees. The trial court ultimately denied plaintiff’s motion for need-based attorney fees. On appeal, the court first noted that plaintiff’s motion was not precluded by the law of the case doctrine, collateral estoppel, or res judicata. And “[c]onsidering the unusual facts and circumstances of this case, including that plaintiff’s earlier request for need-based fees and expenses had never been explicitly addressed, and that the trial court delayed a decision on plaintiff’s motion for disqualification for over two years, . . . consideration of plaintiff’s motion was also not precluded by the passage of time.” But the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion for need-based attorney fees and expenses. “We agree with the trial court that the existing record was sufficient to allow the court to decide the issue of attorney fees and expenses under MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a), and therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to conduct yet another evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees just because this case has been a lengthy and drawn out ordeal.” Moreover, under “the facts of this case, the trial court was not required to adhere to the Smith framework.” Finally, plaintiff was not denied the opportunity to present argument or evidence, as he “had numerous opportunities to present evidence and arguments on this issue.” Affirmed.