Barry a Seifman Pc v. Raymond Guzall III, 328643

Seifman (plaintiff) sued Guzall (defendant) alleging Guzall, a former minority shareholder, took clients and physical client files when he left the firm; Guzall filed counterclaims.
The trial court appointed attorney William Booth as a "Discovery Master" (later also as facilitator); parties were ordered to escrow fees and Booth provided services and billed $4,080.
Guzall engaged with Booth and at times sought expansion of Booth’s role; Guzall later challenged Booth’s appointment and sought return of escrowed funds after adverse rulings and receipt of Booth’s bill.
On May 13, 2015 the trial court orally granted summary disposition to Seifman on the limited issue of Guzall’s removal of client files; Guzall objected to the proposed wording of the written order.
The parties accepted a case evaluation award shortly thereafter; the trial court then entered a written order memorializing the earlier summary-disposition ruling regarding removal of files and an order closing the case because the case evaluation was accepted.
Guzall appealed the trial court’s appointment/payment of the discovery master and the propriety of the subsequent written summary-disposition order; Seifman sought sanctions for frivolous/vexatious appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Seifman)	Defendant's Argument (Guzall)	Held
1) Authority to appoint/pay a discovery master and reasonableness review of fees	Appointment was proper and fees paid per court order	Trial court lacked authority to appoint a discovery master and to require payment; court should review reasonableness of fees	Because both parties accepted case evaluation and thereby disposed of the entire action, Guzall lost ability to appeal the appointment/payment; issues therefore not reviewable on appeal
2) Trial court entry of a written summary-disposition order after mutual acceptance of case-evaluation	Entry was proper because it memorialized an oral ruling made before acceptance	Entry was improper because after acceptance only dismissal should be entered	Entry was proper: the written order merely memorialized a decision made before case evaluation acceptance, so it was ministerial and not an impermissible post-acceptance action
3) Request for appellate sanctions (frivolous/vexatious appeal)	Appeal is frivolous/vexatious; sanctions appropriate	Appeal has arguable bases; sanctions unwarranted	Court declined sanctions: Seifman waived a fuller frivolous-appeal argument and Guzall’s positions, while unpersuasive, were not sanctionable

CAM Const v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass’n, 465 Mich 549; 640 NW2d 256 (Mich. 2002) (acceptance of case evaluation disposes of all claims in the action)
People v Carter, 462 Mich 206; 612 NW2d 144 (Mich. 2000) (acquiescence to a court’s decision waives appellate challenge)
Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654; 641 NW2d 245 (Mich. 2002) (losing an appealable argument does not alone make the position frivolous)
Ykimoff v Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80; 776 NW2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (standards for finding an appeal frivolous)