Opinion
367063
10-24-2023
Rachel Anne Butters v. Patrick Lee Butters
LC No. 15-000548-DM
Kathleen A. Feeney Presiding Judge, Douglas B. Shapiro, Christopher P. Yates, Judges.
ORDER
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The motion for stay pursuant to MCR 7.209 is DENIED, but this Court VACATES both the July 6, 2023 Order After Hearing on June 9, 2023 and the July 6, 2023 Order Amending Order Dated 2-21-2023 as the trial court has failed to follow the mandates set forth in this Court's July 28, 2022 opinion. Specifically, this Court vacated the $15,000 bond imposed on plaintiff-appellant because "[t]he referee's bond order was not accompanied by any analysis of plaintiff's income, the reasons supporting a bond as opposed to other methods of ensuring compliance with court orders, or plaintiff's ability to post a $15,000 bond." In vacating the trial court's December 7, 2021 order and remanding for a de novo hearing pursuant to MCL 552.507 and MCR 3.215(F)(2), this Court also observed: "If on remand the court determines that bond is the only method of facilitating 'the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time,' the touchstone is reasonableness. This will require an analysis of plaintiff's income and expenses, and the practical impediments, if any, to obtaining a parenting-time bond. In conducting this review, the court must not lose sight of plaintiff's constitutional right to regularly visit her children, even if she is no longer the primary custodian, and that the purpose of a bond is to promote both parties' ability to parent their children." [Emphasis in original.]
While the plaintiff-appellant failed in her attempt to adjourn the hearing on remand that had already been adjourned once by stipulation, the trial court had two clear options at the hearing: either reschedule the hearing once more and grant counsel's request for attorney fees pursuant to MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b), or permit defendant's counsel, who was prepared with "multiple binders," to provide whatever testimony was necessary to satisfy this Court's instructions on remand. We cannot condone the trial court's decision to pursue a third option of simply reinstating the $15,000 bond because plaintiff appellant did not appear for the hearing and then expanding the bond from a performance bond that the referee established to ensure compliance with court orders into a bond that needed to be filed before plaintiff could file any motions before the court. This conclusion directly contravenes this Court's July 28, 2022 opinion.