Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

GUY HISSONG and BETHANY HISSONG, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v MARK R. DANCER, Appellant, and STEWART BRYCE, CAROLYN BRYCE, COUNTY OF WEXFORD, WEXFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and WEXFORD COUNTY LANDFILL, Defendants-Appellees, and JILANE FENNER and FENNER REAL ESTATE, INC. a/k/a EXIT REALTY OF GREATER CADILLAC, Defendants.

UNPUBLISHED March 3, 2011

No. 294956 Wexford Circuit Court LC No. 06-019885-CE

GUY HISSONG and BETHANY HISSONG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and JAMES P. O'NEILL, Appellant, v No. 294997 Wexford Circuit Court -1-

STEWART BRYCE, CAROLYN BRYCE, COUNTY OF WEXFORD, WEXFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and WEXFORD COUNTY LANDFILL, Defendants-Appellees, and JILANE FENNER and FENNER REAL ESTATE, INC. a/k/a EXIT REALTY OF GREATER CADILLAC, Defendants.

LC No. 06-019885-CE

Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and BORRELLO, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this consolidated case, plaintiffs, their trial attorney, and their former trial attorney appeal orders of the trial court granting sanctions against them for filing a frivolous complaint. After granting summary disposition to defendants Stewart Bryce and Carolyn Bryce, the trial court ordered plaintiffs and their counsel to pay $11,958.81 in attorney fees and costs to the Bryces because the complaint was not well-grounded in fact and was not made after reasonable inquiry into the facts. The court later clarified that the attorney drafting the complaint for plaintiffs, Mark R. Dancer, and the attorney that replaced Dancer approximately six months later, James P. O'Neill, were jointly and severally liable with plaintiffs for the frivolous complaint. Plaintiffs, Dancer, and O'Neill appeal as of right. We affirm. Dancer argues on appeal that the sanctions issued against him should be reversed because they were issued without due process. We disagree. Dancer was the attorney for plaintiffs who filed the initial complaint on September 14, 2006, but withdrew from representing plaintiffs on March 9, 2007. The trial court found that the complaint violated MCR 2.114 because it was not well-grounded in fact and plaintiffs failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts.1 The trial court agreed that Dancer should be included in the sanctions because he filed the complaint that violated MCR 2.114.

The signature of an attorney or party, whether or not the party is represented by an attorney, constitutes a certification by the signer that . . . to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the document is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. MCR 2.114(D)(2).

1

-2-

MCR 2.114 does not provide a procedure to be followed before sanctions can be imposed, however, a party must receive some type of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of sanctions. Hicks v Ottewell, 174 Mich App 750, 757-758; 436 NW2d 453 (1989). No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1,

Download GUY HISSONG V STEWART BRYCE.pdf

Michigan Law