DAVID M MORAN V PEGGY L MORAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID M. MORAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 12, 2004
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v
No. 249791
Sanilac Circuit Court
LC No. 02-028928-NZ
PEGGY L. MORAN,
Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellee,
and
BILL WILLIAMS,
Defendant,
and
J. ANTHONY SYKORA,
Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellee,
and
GERALD M. ZAMBOROWSKI,
Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Attorney Gerald M. Zamborowski appeals as of right an order granting J. Anthony
Sykora’s motion for sanctions. We reverse. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
-1-
I. Facts and Procedural History
The circumstances surrounding the instant case began with divorce proceedings between
David and Peggy Moran. During the proceedings, criminal and civil assault actions were
brought against Mr. Moran. When Mr. Moran was acquitted of the criminal charges, the parties
agreed to dismiss the civil action with prejudice and without costs. After the dismissal, Mr.
Zamborowski filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. Moran against both Ms. Moran and her
attorney, Mr. Sykora, alleging malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Both defendants represented themselves in propria persona in the action. The trial
court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition and ordered Mr. Moran to pay
defendants’ costs involved in defending those claims. Four days later, Mr. Sykora filed a motion
for costs pursuant to the trial court’s order, without filing an actual bill of costs. Mr. Sykora
urged the court to sanction Mr. Zamborowski, as the claim filed against him was frivolous.
Neither defendant was awarded costs, but the trial court granted $2,356.27 to Mr. Sykora as
sanctions. Mr. Sykora listed $2,356.27 as attorney fees in his motion for “costs.”
II. Award of Attorney Fees for Frivolous Claim
Mr. Zamborowski contests the award of attorney fees to Mr. Sykora as a sanction for his
filing of a frivolous claim pursuant to MCR 2.114(F).1 Although an attorney’s time equals
money, an attorney proceeding pro se, like all other pro se litigants, may not be awarded attorney
fees.2 In FMB-First Mich Bank v Bailey, this Court reversed an order granting attorney fees to
attorney defendants proceeding pro se against their co-defendant as a sanction pursuant to MCR
2.114(F) for raising a frivolous defense.3 This Court found that such a sanction is not authorized
for pro se litigants pursuant to MCR 2.114 and MCL 600.2591. The court rule and statute permit
the award only of the amount of costs and fees actually incurred.4 Pro se litigants, including
attorneys, do not incur attorney fees because they represent themselves.5
The amount of sanctions in this case mirrored the requested attorney fees. It is therefore
clear that the trial court granted Mr. Sykora these fees as a sanction for Mr. Zamborowski filing a
frivolous claim. As we are bound by FMB-First Mich Bank, we must, therefore, reverse the trial
court’s award of sanctions.
As we have determined that the trial court improperly awarded attorney fees to a pro se
litigant as a sanction pursuant to MCR 2.114(F), it is unnecessary to consider Mr.
1
Mr. Zamborowski actually contests the award of attorney fees as costs. However, the trial
court awarded only sanctions.
2
FMB-First Mich Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich App 711, 713-714, 721-722; 591 NW2d 676 (1998).
3
Id.
4
Id. at 725, citing MCR 2.114(E), MCL 600.2591.
5
Id. at 726.
-2-
Zamborowski’s underlying claim that the trial court improperly determined that his claim was
frivolous.
Reversed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-3-
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.
