Sager v. Borczak

Michigan Court of Appeals

Sager v. Borczak

341 N.W.2d 190, 128 Mich. App. 718

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 1983

DocketDocket No. 62611

StatusPublished

This text of 341 N.W.2d 190 (Sager v. Borczak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sager v. Borczak, 341 N.W.2d 190, 128 Mich. App. 718 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves attorney fees in a paternity case. The plaintiff, Laurie Lynn Sager, was represented by the St. Clair County Prosecuting Attorney in the paternity action against Louis Anthony Borczak, Jr. Upon a finding of paternity, the prosecutor petitioned for costs and attorney fees of $913.75 ($35 per hour for 19-1/4 hours). MCL 722.717(b); MSA 25.497(b). The circuit court determined that the prosecutor is not entitled to attorney fees under the terms of the Paternity Act. We reverse and remand.

The Paternity Act provides:

"the order [of filiation] shall also provide for the payment of the necessary expenses incurred by or for the mother in connection with her confinement; for the funeral expenses if the child has died; for the support of the child prior to the making of the order of filiation; and such expenses in connection with the pregnancy of the mother or of the proceedings as the court deems proper.” MCL 722.717(b); MSA 25.497(b) (emphasis added).

We accept the dicta of another panel of this Court that nothing in the statute quoted indicates that a prosecuting attorney’s expenses are not covered by the "expenses of proceedings” section. Oviedo v Ozierey, 104 Mich App 428, 430; 304 NW2d 596 (1981). The statute does not require that the "expenses * * * of the proceedings” be the mother's expenses. The statute makes no distinction between retained counsel and representation by the prosecutor. In fact, a 1962 amendment to the Paternity Act deleted language which allowed attorney fees only to the prosecutor. 1962 PA 238. See Whybra v Gustafson, 365 Mich 396; [720]*720112 NW2d 503 (1961); Houfek v Shafer, 7 Mich App 161, 171; 151 NW2d 385 (1967).

We remand for consideration of whether attorney fees are warranted under GCR 1963, 526 and 111.6. The circuit court is reminded that a prosecutor’s office does not operate like a private for-profit practice; this should be taken into consideration when establishing a reasonable attorney fee.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves attorney fees in a paternity case. The plaintiff, Laurie Lynn Sager, was represented by the St. Clair County Prosecuting Attorney in the paternity action against Louis Anthony Borczak, Jr. Upon a finding of paternity, the prosecutor petitioned for costs and attorney fees of $913.75 ($35 per hour for 19-1/4 hours). MCL 722.717(b); MSA 25.497(b). The circuit court determined that the prosecutor is not entitled to attorney fees under the terms of the Paternity Act. We reverse and remand.

The Paternity Act provides:

"the order [of filiation] shall also provide for the payment of the necessary expenses incurred by or for the mother in connection with her confinement; for the funeral expenses if the child has died; for the support of the child prior to the making of the order of filiation; and such expenses in connection with the pregnancy of the mother or of the proceedings as the court deems proper.” MCL 722.717(b); MSA 25.497(b) (emphasis added).

We accept the dicta of another panel of this Court that nothing in the statute quoted indicates that a prosecuting attorney’s expenses are not covered by the "expenses of proceedings” section. Oviedo v Ozierey, 104 Mich App 428, 430; 304 NW2d 596 (1981). The statute does not require that the "expenses * * * of the proceedings” be the mother's expenses. The statute makes no distinction between retained counsel and representation by the prosecutor. In fact, a 1962 amendment to the Paternity Act deleted language which allowed attorney fees only to the prosecutor. 1962 PA 238. See Whybra v Gustafson, 365 Mich 396; [720]*720112 NW2d 503 (1961); Houfek v Shafer, 7 Mich App 161, 171; 151 NW2d 385 (1967).

We remand for consideration of whether attorney fees are warranted under GCR 1963, 526 and 111.6. The circuit court is reminded that a prosecutor’s office does not operate like a private for-profit practice; this should be taken into consideration when establishing a reasonable attorney fee.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 N.W.2d 190, 128 Mich. App. 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sager-v-borczak-michctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack