Where an appeal has been filed challenging a postjudgment order awarding counsel fees under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) based on a failure to comply with a court order, the appeal must be dismissed because the order constitutes a form of compensatory civil contempt, so it is not appealable of right.
“In this divorce proceeding, defendant-wife appeals a postjudgment order that, among other things, awards attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) based on her failure to comply with a court order. In Alpena Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs v Tadajewski, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 374166); slip op at 3, this Court held that ‘an order of [compensatory] civil contempt . . . is not a final order appealable of right.’ Because an award under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) for noncompliance with a court order constitutes a form of compensatory civil contempt, it falls within the rule articulated in Tadajewski. The attorney-fee award is therefore not appealable of right, and defendant’s remaining claims are likewise jurisdictionally defective. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. …
“Defendant raises three issues on appeal. She challenges the trial court’s decision to (1) require the parties to file a joint tax return; (2) require her to cooperate with plaintiff’s tax preparer or bear additional expenses; and (3) award attorney fees to plaintiff. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over each issue. …
“Because an award under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b) for noncompliance with a court order constitutes a form of compensatory civil contempt under MCL 600.1721, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review it in an appeal of right. In Tadajewski, this Court held that an order of compensatory civil contempt ‘is not a final order appealable of right.’ Although the trial court in Tadajewski relied directly on MCL 600.1721 and the trial court here relied on MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b), that distinction is immaterial—the court rule implements the same statutory contempt authority.
“Like defendant’s challenge to the tax-preparer directive, any challenge to the attorney-fee award had to be brought by application for leave to appeal from ‘a judgment or order of the circuit court … that is not a final judgment appealable of right.’ MCR 7.203(B)(1). …
“Although the reasons differ, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review each of defendant’s issues on appeal. Defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s order requiring the parties to file a joint tax return seeks review of the July 23 judgment of divorce through an appeal from the October 8 order resolving plaintiff’s motion to compel; such review is not permitted. Defendant’s challenges to the order requiring her to cooperate with plaintiff’s tax preparer and to the award of attorney fees do not fall within the definition of a ‘final judgment’ under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i), (iii), or (iv), and therefore likewise fall outside this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”