An interesting Court of Appeals case was released yesterday. Shelly Reynolds filed an action for quiet title to real estate after her former spouse and his mother filed liens against her property. David and Laura Reynolds answered and filed counterclaims of "false liens, slander of title, perjury and harassment." Shelly Reynolds answered the counterclaim and raised several affirmative defenses, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, etc. [That must have been one bitter divorce case.]
From time to time during the trial proceedings, Shelly Reynolds was represented in court by a lawyer, but she had signed no formal fee agreement. She assisted her lawyer on occasion, in a manner that wasn't clear from the opinion. Through her attorney, she moved for summary disposition on her claim, dismissal of the Reynolds' claims and an award for attorney fees and sanctions under MCL 600.2591, claiming that David and Laura Reynolds' pleadings were frivolous. The trial court awarded attorney fees of $3,500 plus some additional costs.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on the summary disposition, dismissal of counterclaims and attorney fees. David Reynolds also raised the issue on appeal that Shelly Reynolds' attorney had violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility in several ways. The following is the COA's response to that claim:
"David Reynolds also argues that Crites violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and that Shelly Reynolds engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Shelly Reynolds was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by exercising her constitutional right to represent herself. Further, David Reynolds misreads the ethics rules. Crites was permitted to assist a litigant in representing herself, he did not charge for services that were not rendered by him, and he did not have a contingency fee arrangement in a domestic relations matter."
You may read the COA opinion in Reynolds v Reynolds here.
Comments