ALPENA — The State of Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) issued an opinion on Tuesday affirming the lower court’s decision that former Attorney Michelle Elowski was in contempt of court for incidents that occurred during two civil cases in 2023.

Appealing a contempt of court ruling means asking a higher court, in this case the Michigan COA, to review and overturn a judge’s decision that one disobeyed a court order or acted disrespectfully.

Elowski was sentenced to 45 days in jail for direct contempt of court for abruptly leaving a civil court proceeding in November 2023, the News previously reported. Elowski was participating remotely when she said she became ill and needed to leave.

Elowski’s jail time for contempt is separate from the embezzlement case in which she received a sentence of eight months in jail and two years probation on Feb. 18, 2025. In that case, she pleaded no contest to one count of embezzlement by a trustee of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000 and one count of check fraud with non-sufficient funds of $500 or more.

Elowski was disbarred by the Michigan Attorney Discipline board effective Jan. 30 and ordered to pay restitution of $201,591.

“In these consolidated appeals, appellant, Michelle L. Elowski, appeals as of right the trial court orders holding her in contempt,” The COA’s opinion states. “Appellant was an attorney of record in two underlying cases–with the same presiding judge–that involved the distribution of two separate trusts. The underlying case in Docket No. 370102 involved the distribution of the “Harrison Trust,” and the underlying case in Docket No. 370387 involved the distribution of the “Mausolf Trust.” In total, appellant was held in contempt three times. Once in the Harrison case for leaving a hearing abruptly, once in the Harrison case for failing to follow a court order and transfer money, and once in the Mausolf case for failing to follow a court order and provide an accounting. Appellant now appeals from both the Harrison case and the Mausolf case, but her arguments on appeal deal primarily with the findings of contempt in the Harrison case.”

The trial court’s order stated that the Court is going to find Elowski in direct contempt for her conduct. That conduct being, voluntarily and just simply stating, to the effect of, “the Court can do what it wants” and hung up from Zoom. The Court views that in the same manner as if Elowski was in the courtroom and she chose just to simply get up, walk out of the court and slam the door shut. Direct contempt is that, that occur in the Court’s presence may be immediately adjudged and sanctioned summarily. Punishment for contempt is appropriate when it is required to restore order in the courtroom and to ensure respect for the judicial process.

“And that’s exactly what we have here,” the order, as quoted in the COA’s opinion, states. “Is there needs to be restore to the order of the courtroom and some form of respect. You can’t just simply state to a court, as a lawyer, that do what you want. And then, effectively, slam the door and walk out.”

The COA opinion states Elowski’s arguments in her appeal and the COA’s response.

Elowski first argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding her in direct contempt on Nov. 3, 2023. The COA disagrees.

MCL 600.1701 governs the courts’ power to address neglect or misconduct, including contempt, and states:

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

Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its authority.

Parties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying any lawful order, decree, or process of the court.

At a Nov. 3, 2023 hearing about the Harrison Estate, Elowski repeatedly asserted that she could not adequately represent herself or her client because of medical issues that she was experiencing. The hearing proceeded, but Elowski, who appeared via Zoom, eventually logged off saying, “Do what you need to do.”

As the trial court stated on the record, Elowski was sufficiently capable of refuting opposing counsel’s description of her communications and did not appear to be suffering any adverse effects from a purported change in medication, the COA opinion states. The trial court also stated in the order following the hearing that she provided no medical documentation from her doctor before the Nov. 3, 2023 hearing began.

Even when that documentation was received, the trial court found it to be inadequate because the included documents were neither notarized nor directly addressed to the court. In sum, there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding appellant in direct contempt for her behavior at the Nov. 3, 2023 hearing.

Appellant further argued that because the trial court deferred her direct contempt sentencing for several months, she was entitled to have a different judge consider her charges. The COA disagrees.

Considering the facts–i.e., that Elowski removed herself from the Zoom call on Nov. 3, 2023 and then proceeded to file multiple motions that the trial court cautiously, and appropriately, resolved first–the trial court had no choice but to defer the contempt sentencing for as long as it did in the case. The trial court afforded appellant extraordinary due process because she had four months to prepare for the eventual contempt sentencing hearing as well as an opportunity to directly challenge the trial court’s decisions through her motion to disqualify the trial court judge. Because any delays were caused by appellant, and not the trial court, appellant was not entitled to have a sentencing hearing before a different judge in this case.

Elowski further argued that the trial court erred by forcing her to waive her Fifth Amendment right and privilege against self-incrimination at the March 11, 2024 Harrison proceeding.The COA agreed, but does not believe that reversal is warranted on that ground.

At the March 11, 2024 Harrison proceeding, Elowski stated that she would be asserting her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as to where the outstanding Harrison-Estate funds had gone, according to the COA opinion. The trial court questioned whether it could “find her in direct contempt for that” as the issue at hand was a civil matter and appellant had been ordered to give an explanation. The trial court stated that it was leaning toward finding appellant in direct contempt because it believed that appellant was “delaying the inevitable,” and that her refusal to explain where the money was by invoking the Fifth Amendment was “as flagrant of a disregard for a civil proceeding as you can possibly get to.”

The trial court stated that it could issue a 93-day term of imprisonment against appellant as a sanction, the COA opinion document continues. Appellant argued that a criminal contempt proceeding would need to be initiated first and that it was “fundamentally contrary to the law to put someone in jail for invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination.” The trial court disagreed, characterizing appellant’s conduct as “running games on the system” and causing disorder in the courtroom by delaying the proceedings.

Elowski reasonably believed that the testimony could incriminate her, the COA opinion states. Accordingly, appellant repeatedly asserted her Fifth Amendment right and only chose to testify after the trial court stated that it could hold her in direct contempt and issue a 93-day term of imprisonment if she did not. Therefore, COA agrees that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

On appeal, Elowski asked that “all information obtained via questioning at the hearing on March 11, 2024, be stricken from the record and an order entered preventing the use of this information in any type of future proceedings due to the Court’s violation of the Appellant’s constitutional rights.” Although the COA may “permit amendments, corrections, or additions to the transcript or record,” MCR 7.216(A)(4), The COA believes that appellant’s request to prevent the use of her March 11, 2024 statements would be more appropriately raised in any subsequent case where an opposing party tries to admit them as evidence.

The COA has no way of telling if these statements were used in Elowski’s embezzlement case, and even if so, to what extent the statements constituted cumulative evidence. Accordingly, the COA declined to grant the broad relief that appellant asked for in this regard.