Divorce penalty for filing twice

Since at a minimum, the plaintiff-wife and her attorney (appellant) were aware of the UK proceedings and reasonable inquiry into the state of those proceedings would have revealed that a divorce decree had already been issued by the UK court, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that sanctions were warranted under MCR 2.114 and MCL 600.2591. Further, given the itemized billing statement, the undisputed hourly rates, and the trial court's finding, the court found no abuse of discretion that defendant-husband reasonably incurred costs and expenses in the amount of $10,044.25 for defending this frivolous action. Plaintiff's divorce complaint was filed in the trial court on 4/19/10. On $/21/10 she obtained ex parte orders for parenting time and a restraining order as to the disposition of assets. However, defendant had filed for divorce in the UK, where the parties previously lived, on 2/15/09, and was awarded custody of their two children by order of the UK court on 6/10/09. An interim divorce was entered in the UK, which became absolute within six weeks. The complaint filed in the trial court was clearly frivolous because divorce proceedings had already taken place in the UK. The court noted that it was incumbent on plaintiff to verify the status of the UK proceedings before filing the complaint. Thus, the trial court did not err in determining that sanctions were warranted. Plaintiff did not dispute the reasonableness or the hourly rate of legal fees, rather she argued that defendant should have advised her of the resolution of the UK divorce and should have filed a motion to dismiss, rather then taking plaintiff's deposition and then filing a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the record supported the trial court's finding that the attorney fees and costs incurred by defendant were reasonable. On 5/21/10, the trial court dismissed the divorce case in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction. Affirmed.