CHRISTOPHER HUBBARD V KATIE BARR

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER HUBBARD V KATIE BARR
Docket No. 381497
LC No. 18-113360-DM
Michael F. Gadola
Presiding Judge
Stephen L. Borrello
Michael J. Riordan
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is DENIED.
Appellant’s counsel has requested a decision on the delayed “EMERGENCY” application
for leave to appeal in this matter by 9:00 a.m. on July 23, 2026—a deadline which would, by its very
nature, require us to shorten appellee’s answer period were we to grant it. See MCR 7.205(C) (providing
that, in general, answers to such applications are due “within 21 days of service”). Contrary to MCR
7.205(B)(4),1 in the delayed application’s statement explaining delay pursuant to MCR 7.205(A)(4),
counsel makes the following factual representations to this Court:
Although Appellant-Mother retained the services of the undersigned appellate
counsel within the time to file a timely Application for Leave to Appeal to this Court, due
to the nature of the February 21 [sic, 20], 2026 Order, which denied Appellant-Mother’s
Motion to Set Aside the Trial Court’s Temporary Order based on the record during the
February 19 hearing, and the Trial Court’s oral pronouncement from the record on October
20, 2025, the procurement of the transcripts of this matter was necessary before the
undersigned could begin work on Appellant-Mother’s appeal. See MCR 7.205(A)(4)(a).
The undersigned promptly ordered the transcripts, but the complete transcripts were not
received by the undersigned until June 22, 2026 respectively. Once counsel was in receipt
of the transcripts, she began work on the instant Application as soon as possible thereafter,
given counsel’s preexisting case deadlines and commitments. [Emphasis added.]
What counsel fails to acknowledge, however, is that this is the second delayed “emergency” application
that she has filed from the February 20, 2026 order she seeks to appeal here. See Docket No. 380319,
Hubbard v Barr. And the instant delayed application is largely identical, in substance, to that prior
application, which was filed nearly three months ago, on April 16, 2026. Given that large sections of the
two applications are verbatim duplicates, it seems that counsel actually “began” her work on the instant
1 In pertinent part, MCR 7.205(B)(4) provides:
If the transcript is not yet available, or if there is no record to be transcribed, the appellant
must file a copy of the certificate of the court reporter or recorder or a statement by the
appellant’s attorney as provided in MCR 7.204(C)(2). As soon as the transcript is
available, the appellant must file it with the Court of Appeals.

-- 1 of 2 --

application long before June 22, 2026. In other words, after stipulating to dismissal of the prior delayed
“emergency” application from the same order appealed here, counsel waited nearly three months, refiled
a largely identical pleading in this Court, and asked for a decision in less than three weeks—a request
which would, if granted, have the effect of shortchanging the other side of its full answer period. Given
counsel’s delay in filing the second delayed application, we feel obliged to deny the motion for immediate
consideration.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
July 9, 2026

-- 2 of 2 --