SOLOMON KATZ V RONALD J SPAULDING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SOLOMON KATZ,
UNPUBLISHED
August 2, 2005
Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellant,
v
RONALD J. SPAULDING and ANTOINETTE E.
SPAULDING,
No. 253204
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-927176-CH
Defendants/CounterplaintiffsAppellees.
Before: Borrello, P.J. and Bandstra and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order of judgment in defendants’ favor
assessing costs and attorney fees against plaintiff. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This court reviews a trial court's decision to award attorney fees for an abuse of
discretion. HA Smith Lumber & Hardware Co v Decina (On Remand), 265 Mich App 380, 383;
695 NW2d 347 (2005). An award of sanctions based on a frivolous complaint is reviewed under
a clearly erroneous standard. Lakeside Oakland Development, LC v H & J Beef Co, 249 Mich
App 517, 532; 644 NW2d 765 (2002). We find no abuse of discretion or clear error in this case.
Although the trial court erred in relying on general equitable principles rather than MCL
600.2591 in assessing fees, we will not reverse when the trial court reached the right result for
the wrong reason. Taylor v Laban, 241 Mich App 449, 458; 616 NW2d 229 (2000). The
evidence and the court’s findings indicate that plaintiff abused the process in pursuing his claim
for purposes of harassing defendants or “emptying” defendants’ wallets. Attorney fees were,
therefore, properly assessed. Meagher v Wayne State University, 222 Mich App 700, 727-729;
565 NW2d 401 (1977).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
