3.17Appeals of Contempt Orders
A.Appeals to Circuit Court and Court of Appeals
Final judgments and orders of the district court are appealable as of right to the circuit court, except that “final orders and judgments based upon pleas of guilty or nolo contendere shall be by application.” MCL 600.8342(2); MCL 600.8342(4). Judgments entered by the circuit court on appeals from lower courts are appealable by application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. MCL 600.8342(3).
Final judgments and final orders of the circuit court, Court of Claims, and probate court not expressly listed in MCL 600.308(2)1 and MCL 600.308(3)2 are appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals. MCL 600.308(1). See also MCR 7.203.
Where “[t]he court clearly contemplated the [personal protection order]’s extension as a condition of its sentence, respondent’s appeal of the extension is an appeal from respondent’s sentence for criminal contempt entered after the contested hearing, which would then be by right.” In re SB, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024), citing MCR 3.709(C)(1).
“MCR 3.709(C) provides for an appeal from a finding after a violation hearing as follows:
(1) The respondent has an appeal of right from a sentence for criminal contempt entered after a contested hearing.
(2) All other appeals concerning violation proceedings are by application for leave.” SB, ___ Mich App at ___.
B.What Constitutes a Final Order
“Criminal contempt is a crime and, therefore, an order finding a party in criminal contempt of court and sanctioning the party is a final order from which a contemnor may appeal as of right.” In re Moroun, 295 Mich App 312, 329 (2012) (citations omitted). See also MCL 600.308(1); MCR 7.203(A); MCR 7.202(6)(b).
“[A]n order finding a party in civil contempt of court is not a final order for purposes of appellate review. In re Moroun, 295 Mich App at 329, citing MCL 600.308(2); MCR 7.202(6)(a). Accordingly, in a civil contempt case a party may only appeal by application. In re Moroun, 295 Mich App at 330.
Nonparties held in contempt or sanctioned for the contempt of another can appeal the contempt order by right, even if it is not a final order. In re Moroun, 295 Mich App at 330-331.
In In re Moroun, 295 Mich App at 332-333, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to jail two individuals who had control over the defendant company after the company was found in contempt, even though they were not parties to the suit. However, because they were not parties and, therefore, would not otherwise have the ability to appeal the trial court’s decision, the Court held that nonparties held in contempt or sanctioned for the contempt of another can appeal by right the trial court’s order. Id. at 330-331.
C.Appealing the Refusal to Find a Person in Contempt
The refusal to issue an order of contempt “is not properly reviewable by general appeal.” Mason v Siegel, 301 Mich 482, 484 (1942) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, a party must file a complaint for an order of superintending control. Barnett v Int’l Tennis Corp, 80 Mich App 396, 415 (1978) (noting that the Mason Court stated that “a petition for a writ of mandamus or certiorari” was required, and explaining that those actions would now be classified as a complaint for an order of superintending control). See also Shelby Twp v Liquid Disposal, Inc, 71 Mich App 152, 154 (1976).
“‘The issuance of an order of contempt rests in the sound discretion of the court.’” Mason v Siegel, 301 Mich 482, 484 (1942), quoting Barnaby v Barnaby, 290 Mich 335, 337 (1939).
A finding of contempt or a refusal to find a person in contempt may be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 99 (2003). “The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that there will be circumstances where there is no single correct outcome and which require us to defer to the trial court’s judgment; reversal is warranted only when the trial court's decision is outside the range of principled outcomes.” Porter v Porter, 285 Mich App 450, 455 (2009). See also Brandt v Brandt, 250 Mich App 68, 73 (2002) (“A trial court’s findings in a contempt proceeding must be affirmed on appeal if there is competent evidence to support them.”).
“The trial court’s findings of fact in a contempt proceeding are reviewed for clear error and will be affirmed on appeal when supported by competent evidence. Clear error occurs only when the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Coloma Charter Twp v Berrien Co, 317 Mich App 127, 169 (2016) (citations omitted).
The appellate court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses; if evidence in the record supports the lower court’s findings, the lower court will be affirmed. Cross Co v UAW Local No 155 (AFL-CIO), 377 Mich 202, 217-218 (1966). “Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements.” In re JCB, 336 Mich App 736, 748 (2021).
Questions of law, such as whether the contempt statute permitted the sanctions imposed in a case, are reviewed de novo. In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 243 Mich App 697, 714 (2000).
“When examining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal-contempt finding following a bench trial, [the Court of Appeals] views the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re JCB, 336 Mich App at 747.
1 MCL 600.308(2) lists the types of orders and judgments that are reviewable only on application for leave to appeal.
2 MCL 600.308(3) prohibits appeals of orders concerning the assignment of a case to the business court.