3.4Prosecution of Contempt Actions

In direct contempt cases, the judge who witnessed the contumacious conduct initiates the proceedings.¹ See MCL 600.1701(a); MCL 600.1711(1). In cases of indirect contempt, the person who initiates the proceedings differs depending on the circumstances of the contempt.

“[A] private party’s attorney may act as the prosecutor in a criminal- contempt proceeding.” Ferranti v Electrical Resources Co, 330 Mich App 439, 451 (2019).

A.Specific Indirect Contempt Proceedings

In the following circumstances, initiation and prosecution of contempt proceedings are governed by statute or court rule:

•Action to abate a nuisance. A prosecuting attorney, the attorney general, any resident of the county in which a nuisance is located, or a city, village, or township attorney for the city, village, or township in which a nuisance is located may bring an action to abate a nuisance. MCL 600.3805.

•Domestic relations cases. Depending on the type of order allegedly violated, the Friend of the Court or an aggrieved party may institute actions to enforce orders and judgments in domestic relations cases. MCL 552.613(1); MCL 552.626(4); MCL 552.631(1); MCL 552.641(1); MCL 552.644; MCR 3.208(B).

•Personal protection orders. In criminal contempt proceedings for violations of personal protection orders, a prosecuting attorney must prosecute the proceedings unless the petitioner retains her or his own attorney. MCL 764.15b(7); MCR 3.708(G). “The absence of a proper prosecutor constitute[s] a jurisdictional defect rendering [a] conviction void.” In re LT, 342 Mich App 126, 139 (2022).

B.Unspecified Indirect Contempt Proceedings

Initiation of indirect contempt is governed by MCR 3.606(A), which provides that the court can either order the accused contemnor to show cause or issue a bench warrant if there is “a proper showing on ex parte motion supported by affidavits[.]” MCR 3.606 permits private parties to initiate a contempt proceeding by ex parte motion. DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587, 600 (2007) (holding that “it is manifest that the Michigan Court Rules contemplate that a private party . . . may initiate and prosecute a motion to hold an opposing party in criminal contempt”). See also In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 667 (2009) (noting that “a prosecutor need not initiate proceedings or prosecute a claim for indirect criminal contempt”).