The Michigan Court of Appeals incorrectly held that a trial court had to consider the factors in Dean v Tucker when assessing a party’s motion to amend its witness list, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.

A trial court’s postjudgment order awarding attorney fees under MCR 3.206 for the defendant’s alleged noncompliance with an order in her divorce case “constitutes a form of compensatory civil contempt” and “is not a final order appealable of right,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, dismissing the defendant’s appeal.

A healthcare provider that treats an injured person for an accidental bodily injury is not entitled to recover no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3112 when the injured person is an "owner" of an uninsured motor vehicle under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and therefore ineligible to receive PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).

In this boundary dispute between neighbors, the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to the “hostility” element of adverse possession, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, thereby vacating the quiet title judgment that had been issued and remanding the case for further factual findings.

The “American rule” does not necessarily bar a claim for attorney fees in an accounting malpractice action, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in Merrifield v ATS Advisors, et al.

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case addressing whether the City of Royal Oak violated the Open Meetings Act because the city commission effectively delegated its governing authority to the city manager, who chose in closed-door meetings which applicants would be awarded retail marijuana licenses.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed an attorney’s criminal contempt conviction for derogatory comments he made about the judge at the close of a virtual court hearing.

The trial court in this “contentious” divorce case properly required the ex-husband to post a security bond each time he filed a motion or pleading, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, due to his “repeated” filing of “meritless” pleadings that violated the court rules.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The trial court wrongly dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and negligence claims that arose during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic because the decedent’s injuries were not sustained “by reason of” healthcare services provided “in support of [the] state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the hospital's liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency and did not need to show further reliance under the Grewe test.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the Oakland County trial court improperly granted an ex-husband’s motion to “clarify” the parties’ judgment of divorce because, in doing so, the trial court actually modified the judgment, thereby affecting the parties’ substantive rights.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this suit contesting the validity of a divorce judgment, the trial court correctly held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and, as a result, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.