Interpreting the statutory provision and the court rule, this Court in Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich.App. 460; 740 N.W.2d 751 (2007), affirmed the trial court's custody determination even though it refused to hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing after the defendant objected to the referee's recommendation. Id. at 463-466
See Cochrane, 234 Mich.App. at 132. The court may conduct the hearing by review of the record of the referee hearing, MCL 552.507(6)(a), but the court must allow the parties to present evidence, subject to the restrictions permitted by MCR 3.215(F)(2). MCL 552.507(5); see Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich.App. 460, 465; 740 N.W.2d 751 (2007) (indicating that the trial court is permitted to consider the FOC report or recommendation "if it also allows the parties to present live evidence").
This Court "defer[s] to a trial court's unique opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses before it . . . ." Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich App 460, 465; 740 NW2d 751 (2007). This Court reviews unpreserved issues for plain error affecting substantial rights.
A trial court may consider a report absent a stipulation of the parties if it also allows the parties to present live evidence. Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich App 460, 465; 740 NW2d 751 (2007). Because the parties were permitted to call witnesses and present evidence, the referee was entitled to admit and consider the report even though the parties did not stipulate to its admission.
(3) If the court determines that an objection is frivolous or has been interposed for the purpose of delay, the court may assess reasonable costs and attorney fees. In Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich App 460, 465-466; 740 NW2d 751 (2007), this Court explained: In earlier versions of this court rule, the trial court was permitted to base its review solely on the FOC record only if the parties consented.
Defendant objected to the referee's recommendations and the trial court held a hearing on the matter as provided under MCL 552.507(4), (5), and (6). A trial court may ultimately arrive at a new decision "based entirely on the record of a previous hearing, including any memoranda, recommendations, or proposed orders by the referee," MCL 552.507(6)(a), but the court must allow the parties to present live evidence, subject to the restrictions permitted by MCR 3.215(F)(2). MCL 552.507(5)(b); see Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich.App. 460, 465; 740 N.W.2d 751 (2007) (indicating that the trial court is permitted to consider the Friend of the Court report or recommendation "if it also allows the parties to present live evidence"). In this case, the trial court properly analyzed defendant's objections to the referee's recommendations respecting plaintiff's motion to enforce the judgment and determined that his objections lacked merit.
MCR 3.215(F)(2); see also Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich.App. 460, 465; 740 N.W.2d 751 (2007) (stating that the trial court is permitted to consider the referee's recommendation "if it also allows the parties to present live evidence").
The trial court may ultimately arrive at a new decision "based entirely on the record of a previous hearing, including any memoranda, recommendations, or proposed orders by the referee," MCL 552.507(6)(a), but the court must allow the parties to present live evidence, subject to the restrictions permitted by MCR 3.215(F)(2). See also MCL 552.507(5)(b) ; and Dumm v. Brodbeck , 276 Mich.App. 460, 465, 740 N.W.2d 751 (2007) (indicating that the trial court is permitted to consider the Friend of the Court report or recommendation "if it also allows the parties to present live evidence").
(c) A new decision based in part on the record of a referee hearing supplemented by evidence that was not introduced at a previous hearing. See also Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich App 460, 465-466; 740 NW2d 751 (2007) (stating that because the defendant did not seek to present new evidence or live testimony at the de-novo review, the trial court properly reviewed the Friend of the Court record and issued a proper order in reliance on the Friend of the Court's recommendation). Here, there is no evidence that Brassfield sought to present new evidence or live testimony at the de novo hearing.
In conducting a de novo hearing, a trial court may consider a referee's report and recommendation but must also allow the parties to present live evidence. Dumm v Brodbeck, 276 Mich App 460, 465; 740 NW2d 751 (2007). The de novo hearing's purpose "is for the trial court to render its own decision based on the evidence, independent of any prior . . . ruling."