Court Awards Attorney Fees in Michigan Loan Case

A Michigan court granted $3,305.85 in attorney fees following a series of default judgments against the defendants.

Updated on Oct. 27, 2026 in Financial Planning

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a single massive marble pillar, representing the authority of the judicial system. — A Michigan court has finalized a ruling ordering the payment of $3,305.85 in attorney fees following default judgments in a commercial loan case. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should courts automatically enforce attorney fee provisions in commercial loan agreements when default judgments occur?

The court ordered the payment of $3,305.85 in legal fees and costs to the plaintiff in a dispute involving commercial loan agreements. This ruling follows default judgments previously entered against the primary defendants in the case.

Why it matters

The decision underscores the legal enforceability of attorney fee provisions contained within commercial loan agreements when litigation results in a default judgment. Such awards ensure that successful plaintiffs can recover specific costs incurred during the debt collection process.

The court awarded $3,305.85 in total attorney fees, a figure representing less than 6% of the final judgment total. The calculation was derived from itemized billing statements analyzed under the standards set by Pirgu v United Servs. Auto Ass'n.

The players

Reuben Anthony Solis

He is a defendant in the litigation who had a default judgment entered against him.

El Shop, LLC

This entity is a corporate defendant that was subject to a default entry in the case.

Marcus Anthony Solis

He is a named defendant in the commercial loan dispute.

The details

The court evaluated the fee request by comparing itemized statements against standard billing rates to ensure reasonableness under established legal precedent. The ruling finalizes the financial penalties for Reuben Anthony Solis, Marcus Anthony Solis, and El Shop, LLC.

June 23, 2026: Defaults were entered against Reuben Anthony Solis and El Shop, LLC.
July 23, 2026: A default was entered against Marcus Anthony Solis.
August 4, 2026: The plaintiff officially moved for the entry of a default judgment.
September 14, 2026: The court conducted a hearing regarding the motion for default judgment.

Market Dynamics

This ruling follows the analytical framework established by Pirgu v United Servs. Auto Ass'n to evaluate the reasonableness of legal fees in civil disputes. The decision reflects a broader trend of courts strictly scrutinizing fee petitions against established market billing standards.

For retail investors and business owners, this ruling highlights the necessity of reviewing fee-shifting clauses within commercial lending contracts. Proper documentation of legal expenses remains essential for recovering costs during potential litigation or collection proceedings.

The takeaway

Commercial loan agreements often include specific provisions that allow for the recovery of legal costs during litigation. Reviewing these contractual terms carefully can help businesses and individuals better understand their financial obligations if a dispute arises.