is being dissolved.” Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 157-158; 673 NW2d 825 (2005). Hoffman and Kasben were parties to the divorce; hence, the trial court had the authority to compel them to transfer assets to each other. But a trial court normally does not have the authority to adjudicate the rights of third parties. Id. In this case the trial court authorized the disbursement of funds to Hoffman or on her behalf, and Hoffman elected to authorize Bergstrom to use the funds to pay a portion of his fees. And there are no allegations that Hoffman fraudulently transferred the funds at issue or that Bergstrom otherwise engaged in conduct that might warrant holding him personally liable to restore the funds to Kasben. See, e.g., In re Contempt of Calcutt, 184 Mich App 749; 458 NW2d 919 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Donahue v Donahue, 134 Mich App 696, 704-705;
holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term holding both a party and his attorney liable to repay funds withdrawn in violation of a stay where the attorney violated this courts orders and concealed the fund holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally holding that where an attorney serves as trustee and attorney for the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding the attorney must distinguish time spent in each role holding that because attorney violated several rules of professional conduct the attorney also violated rule 84a