5.5​Fictitious Bail, Deceit, Abuse of Process, or Filing False Pleadings and Documents

A.​Statutory Authority and Court Rule

“The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment,^[5] or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases:

* * *

(d) Parties to actions for putting in fictitious bail or sureties or for any deceit or abuse of the process or proceedings of the court.” MCL 600.1701(d).

MCR 1.109(D)-(E) require documents to be signed or verified in certain cases. An electronic signature is also acceptable. MCR 1.109(E)(4). False declarations in documents are the subject of MCR 1.109(D)(3), which states:

“Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, a document need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. If a document is required or permitted to be verified, it may be verified by

(a) oath or affirmation of the party or of someone having knowledge of the facts stated; or

(b) except as to an affidavit, including the following signed and dated declaration:

‘I declare under the penalties of perjury that this ______ has been examined by me and that its contents are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.’ . . .

In addition to the sanctions provided by [MCR 1.109(E)], a person who knowingly makes a false declaration under this subrule may be found in contempt of court.”

B.​Indirect Contempt

Filing false pleadings constitutes indirect contempt. In re Collins, 329 Mich 192, 196 (1950). The filing of false pleadings may not be summarily punished because it is not an act within the immediate view and presence of the court. See id.

C.​False or Evasive Testimony or Pleading

A witness’s false or evasive testimony that conflicted with other witnesses’ testimony may be contumacious. In re Scott, 342 Mich 614, 617-618 (1955).

In People v Little, 115 Mich App 662, 664 (1982), a criminal defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he had lied during the plea proceeding. The judge issued an order to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt. Id. The defendant’s attorney testified at the show-cause hearing that he advised the defendant to plead guilty because “the case was unwinnable[,]” but the court ultimately found the defendant in criminal contempt. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed the criminal contempt citation, finding that it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s false statements at the plea proceeding were culpable. Id. at 665.