CITY OF ALPENA V TOM SHAW INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF ALPENA,
UNPUBLISHED
June 9, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 202542
Alpena Circuit Court
LC No. 92-000262 CZ
TOM SHAW, INC, and TOM SHAW,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Jansen and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Following a remand for additional proceedings conforming with due process requirements, City
of Alpena v Tom Shaw, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued
September 17, 1996 (Docket No. 176267), the trial court entered an order in this contempt
proceeding imposing court costs against defendants as a civil remedial sanction. Defendants appeal as
of right from the entry of this order. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
When this Court vacated the entry of the default in the contempt action below, the contempt
action returned to its pre-default posture. See e.g., Gavulic v Boyer, 195 Mich App 20; 489 NW2d
124 (1992). In light of the fact that the pre-default posture of the contempt proceedings was that a
finding of criminal contempt had been made against defendant Shaw by the trial court, on remand,
defendant Shaw was entitled to notice and a hearing with regard to the civil remedial sanctions the court
sought to impose, Cummings v Wayne Co, 210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995), such
sanctions being predicated upon an exercise of the court’s inherent powers to recompense itself, or the
taxpayers who fund judicial operations, for the expenditures incurred as a result of the misconduct of
defendant Shaw, In re Thurston, 226 Mich App 205; 574 NW2d 374 (1997).
On remand, the court conducted a prehearing conference at which it informed the parties that it
was “reaffirming” its imposition of civil remedial sanctions. The court also informed defendant Shaw
that before it entered an order imposing the sanctions, Shaw would be allowed to file written objections
to entry of the sanctions order, and to have a hearing at which Shaw could attempt to establish the
-1
merits of his objections. While defendant Shaw agreed to file written objections, he waived his right to
a hearing, on the record. On this record, the civil sanctions were imposed in a manner consistent with
due process and defendant Shaw’s waiver of his right to a hearing now precludes Shaw from upsetting
the sanctions order on due process grounds. Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620,
636; 567 NW2d 468 (1997).
To the extent that defendants argue that the trial court should have set aside the judgment in
favor of plaintiff because this Court vacated the entry of default which served as the predicate for the
entry of that judgment, defendants are precluded from raising this issue because the instant appeal is
limited to the matter that occurred on remand, and further because defendants failed to appeal from the
entry of the judgment in favor of plaintiff, depriving this Court of jurisdiction over such issue. See e.g.,
People v Jones, 394 Mich 434; 231 NW2d 649 (1975); Gherardini v Ford Motor Co, 394 Mich
430; 231 NW2d 643 (1975); People v Pickett, 391 Mich 305; 215 NW2d 695 (1974).
Affirmed.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
