UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MAUREEN VAN HOVEN, for herself and class ┐ members, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > Nos. 18-2399/19-1078 │ v. │ │ │ BUCKLES & BUCKLES, P.L.C.; GERALDINE C. │ BUCKLES; MICHAEL H.R. BUCKLES, │ Defendants-Appellants. ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:14-cv-00060—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.

Argued: October 23, 2019

Decided and Filed: January 16, 2020

Before: SUTTON, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Roger L. Premo, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Michael O. Nelson, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Roger L. Premo, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Michael O. Nelson, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kevin J. Rogers, Phillip C. Rogers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. Jeffrey A. Topor, SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae in 18-2399.

SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined. STRANCH, J. (pp. 16–22) delivered a separate dissenting opinion. Nos. 18-2399/19-1078 Van Hoven v. Buckles & Buckles, P.L.C., et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A lawyer sued two lawyers, and each side hired more lawyers. Five years later, after “Stalingrad litigation” tactics, discovery sanctions, and dueling allegations of professional misconduct, we are left with $3,662 in damages and roughly $180,000 in attorney’s fees. We vacate and remand.

I.

Maureen Van Hoven, a Michigan attorney, defaulted on a credit card debt with Discover several years ago. Discover hired Buckles & Buckles, a law firm, to collect the debt. The law firm filed a debt collection lawsuit in state court and won. Van Hoven didn’t pay.

Faced with a recalcitrant debtor, a creditor may use garnishment to intercept the debtor’s income at its source (say from the debtor’s employer) rather than trying to collect from the debtor herself. Post-judgment garnishment usually comes easily because the debtor already had her day in court and lost. That’s true in Michigan, where the Michigan Court Rules offer a simplified post-judgment garnishment procedure. To collect, the creditor gives the court clerk a verified statement that describes the debt and the parties. MCR 3.101(D). If everything “appears to be correct,” the clerk issues a writ of garnishment and the creditor serves it on the third party, the garnishee. MCR 3.101(D)–(E). Unless the garnishee or debtor objects, that’s usually it: The garnishee gives the money to the creditor rather than the debtor. MCR 3.101(J)(1).

Buckles & Buckles invoked the procedure to collect this debt, filing four requests for a writ of garnishment over the course of a year. Van Hoven says those requests violated the Michigan Court Rules in two ways. In each request, Buckles tacked on the costs of the request (a $15 filing fee) to the amount due. And in later garnishment requests, Buckles added the costs of p