RANDALL ANTHONY SCOTTI V JOY ELLEN SCOTTI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RANDALL ANTHONY SCOTTI,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2008
Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant,
v
No. 279672
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2004-695786-DM
JOY ELLEN SCOTTI,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff, acting in propria persona, appeals as of right from an order finding him in
contempt of court for failure to pay child and spousal support1 and ordering him incarcerated for
60 days. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision to issue an order of contempt for an abuse of
discretion. Brandt v Brandt, 250 Mich App 68, 73; 645 NW2d 327 (2002).
First, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in not appointing counsel at the show cause
hearing after plaintiff requested the appointment of counsel. The transcript of the proceeding
does not reflect that any such request was made, even after the trial court informed plaintiff that
he had a right to be represented by counsel.2 Plaintiff maintains that the request is evident on a
DVD allegedly of the hearing that he appended to his brief on appeal. However, plaintiff never
1
This Court affirmed the parties’ judgment of divorce, and in particular, the computation of
plaintiff’s income for purposes of determining child support. Scotti v Scotti, unpublished opinion
per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 20, 2007 (Docket No. 266642).
2
Plaintiff acknowledged that he had a right to an attorney, indicated that he did not have an
attorney, and then thanked the court for letting him proceed. We note that plaintiff makes no
argument that the court did not adequately advise him of his rights.
-1-
sought to correct the record in the lower court. See MCR 7.208(C). The lower court record does
not support defendant’s position.
Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in awarding defendant attorney fees. He
avers that the award was based on a magistrate’s recommendation and that the DVD of the
magistrate’s hearing is corrupted because it does not bear a continuing time stamp. The referee’s
findings of fact indicate that this hearing pertained to plaintiff’s motion to modify child and
spousal support. No mention is made of attorney fees in these findings. Moreover, the award of
attorney fees made in the order appealed was in response to a request in the motion to show
cause, which post-dated the hearing before the referee. Thus, even if the referee had made a
recommendation, it would be irrelevant in the context of this appeal.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.