Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JOHN DAVID LANGLOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CONSTANCE MOORE LANGLOIS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2008

No. 280764 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 1999-626705-DM

Before: O'Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Gleicher, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right a circuit court order dividing a guardian ad litem's fees equally between the parties, and denying defendant's request for sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.114(E). We affirm, and decide this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Since the entry of the parties' divorce judgment in 2001, they have battled continuously over custody and support issues involving their daughter. The parties' present dispute arises from a November 2006 motion that plaintiff filed seeking to temporarily suspend defendant's parenting time pending the initiation of an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS) into defendant's living conditions, and defendant's subsequent motion to limit plaintiff to supervised visitation. Because the circuit court found that the parties could not resolve their differences in the best interests of their child, it appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), and reserved ruling on who would pay the fees that the GAL incurred. After the parties resolved both motions with assistance from the GAL, plaintiff moved to apportion the GAL's fees equally between the parties. Defendant objected and filed a motion for sanctions, asserting that plaintiff had filed his November 2006 motion in violation of MCR 2.114(E) and (F). The circuit court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's motion. A party or the party's attorney must sign every document that the party files in an action. MCR 2.114(C)(1). That signature constitutes a certification that, among other things, "to the best of [the signer's] 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," and has not been filed "for any improper purpose." MCR 2.114(D)(2), (3). A document signed in violation of subrule (D) subjects the signer, "a represented party, or both" to sanctions, including reasonable attorney fees. MCR 2.114(E). The imposition of a sanction becomes mandatory on a "finding that a -1-


pleading was signed in violation of the court rule."1 Contel Systems Corp v Gores, 183 Mich App 706, 710-711; 455 NW2d 398 (1990). "To impose a sanction under MCR 2.114(E), the trial court must first find that an attorney or party has signed a pleading in violation of MCR 2.114(A)-(D)." In re Stafford, 200 Mich App 41, 42; 503 NW2d 678 (1993). Such a determination "depends largely on the facts and circumstances of the claim." Id. A trial court's determination that a party violated the court rule involves a finding of fact by the trial court. Contel Systems, supra at 711. Therefore, this Court reviews for clear error "a trial court's decision regarding the imposition of a sanction" under MCR 2.114(E). Schadewald v Brul

Download JOHN DAVID LANGLOIS V CONSTANCE MOORE LANGLOIS.pdf

Michigan Law