*1 Edgеwood v CAM Condo Ass’n Constr LAKE CAMCONSTRUCTION EDGEWOODCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 8, Argued (Calendar 9). No. 116751. No. Docket November Decided 12, March 2002. brought Livingston CAM Construction an action in the Circuit Court against Lake Condominium for Association contractual damages relating repairs. court, to The condominium Daniel A. Buiress, J., summary disposition granted for the defendants on onе count, remaining proceeded through and the three counts case parties accepted evaluation under 2.403. Both the evaluation. timely paid amount, The defendant the evaluation and the court preseived case, plaintiffs right dismissed the entire but the appeal summary disposition granted. the on which issue was The Appeals, P.J., of Court and D. E. Jr. Hood, Holbrook, Whitbeck, JJ., unpublished dismissed its own in the on an plaintiff ground party aggrieved on order the that the not an 221987). (Docket appeals. No. opinion by joined by In an Justice Chief Justice Cavanagh, and Justices Corrigan, Yodng, Weaver, Taylor, Markman, Suprеme Court held: Upon acceptance 2.403, party of a case evaluation a may subsequently appeal summary disposition not an adverse on one count in action. provides that, upon parties’ acceptance 1. MCR both evaluation, aof case entered to thаt evalua- dispositive is to tion be deemed of all claims. The accepting could rule not be more clear: a case means evaluation action, summarily disposed, all claims in the even those are Allowing dismissed. of bifurcation the claims within such actions directly contrary be would of rule. Althоugh showing 2. law case has allowed a make a evaluation, than less were issues submitted to case has it panel’s evaluation, basis the court rule. If all the case is over. parties accepted case, In this both 3. the case evaluation panel, paid required and the defendant evаluation amount days. circumstances, twenty-eight within In those court circuit 465 Mich dismiss, granted motion to without the defendant’s should have court should have dis- Because the circuit or reservation. condition entirety, did not err this case in its missed appeal. plaintiff’s it dismissed the claim when *2 Affirmed. judge’s Kelly, dissenting, the trial stated that statements Justice plaintiff’s appel- make clear that he intended the in the final order summary disposition rights respecting the count on which
late preserved. judge granted and the be It is obvious that both reasonably interpretation plaintiff 2.403(M)(1) of MCR relied on the Corp, App Mortgage in Reddam v Consumers Therеfore, unjust apply progeny. it is a more strict read- and its plaintiff’s appeal. ing court rule to this The case should be review of the dis- remanded to the Court of for position ruling its merits. on A. Barry David Davidson and for Seifman plaintiff-appellant. P.L.L.C. E. Edward Hood and
Dykema (by Gossett defendant-appellee. Mаnn), Allison L. for consider whether granted J. We leave to Cavanagh, may appeal summary disposition an a adverse of a multicount action after on one count under a case evaluation rendered accepting pro- plain language 2.403. The of MCR a party’s acceptanсe vides that a case evaluation conclude, We disposes of “all claims in the action.” that, upon acceptance of a case evaluation therefore, party may subsequently not 2.403, summary disposition on one appeal an adverse count in the action.
I. FACTSAND PROCEEDINGS 1998, plaintiff In CAM Cоnstruction filed a August complaint defendant Lake against four-count Association for damages Condominium Edgewood CAM Constr v Condo Ass’n Opinion op the Court pay plaintiff from defendant’s failure to stemming for rendered and In services breach of contract. counts I, in, plaintiff n, alleged $9,110 that defendant owed rеndered an agreement for services parties. between the In rv, plaintiff alleged count reneged separate contract, defendant on a worth $183,450, plaintiff from roof preventing performing construction work for defendant. summary disposition
Defendant moved for on rv, count the contract was void claiming under the statute of frauds. MCL The 566.132(l)(a). circuit court defendant’s granted December 1998 and did not that decision. The case was then submitted to case evaluation, for parties which both submitted mediation summaries.1 briefly summaries referred to the dismissal of rv2;however, count debate whether it was *3 only the remаining panel counts the case evaluation discussed.3 The panel pay recommended defendant 1 arose, At the time this case the term “mediation” was used to define process. process, evaluation,” the The current term that defines the “case adopted in 2000. 2 summary following Plaintiffs mediatiоn stated the about count rv: Rather, agreed perform roofing CAMhad with to Lake repairs warranty above, under the work stated and Lake Edgewood, essence, agreement breached this and did not allow perform (this allegation CAM to this work has been dismissed Court, being signed agreement
the
to there
due
for services
allegedly
year period).
which were
to have
over a
occurred
three
following
Defendant’s mediation
stated
iv:
about count
Complaint
The
also included a claim for breach
aof December
agreement
By
for roof construction work.
order dated Decem-
17, 1998,
ber
this Court dismissed that claim.
panel
Plaintiff asserts that the case evaluation
did not discuss count
iv. Defendant states that because the decision was made outside the law
yer’s presence,
panel
no one can be sure whether the
discussed count iv.
If all the evaluation, will be entered in accordance with the unless paid days the amount of the award is within 28 after notifi- acceptances, cation of the in which case the court shall dis- рrejudice. judgment miss the action with The or dismissal dispose shall be deemed of all claims in the action and includes all and interest to date it is entered. responded Plaintiff that it had reserved right its summary disposition on count IV. Arguing the case evaluation summaries had focused on the claims in i-ni, plaintiff counts asserted that $5,400 only case evaluation award por- covered tion of the case. circuit court with agreed ordered to: judgment preserves appellate
Craft a here that issue on the issue that I decided and otherwise dismisses the case shows this to be a final order in the-the final case.[4] ordеr in this This stated: having brought action, Plaintiff with its breach of contract through Summary count dismissed Disposition prior Mediation, Defendant’s Motion for Partial being the cause mediated as to the issues, remaining parties having mutually accepted mediation issues, having paid on those the amount of the award been within dаys acceptances, Court, being after notification of the and the premises: otherwise advised in the hereby dismissed, prejudice, It is ordered that this matter is with *4 Complaint, relative to the of counts which survived Defendant’s Summary interest, Judgment, costs, Motion for Partial attorney with no or party. fees awarded tо either This is final
this matter. CAM Constr Condo Ass’n of Plaintiff, thereafter, summary disposi- appealed rv. tion on count of Appeals appeal
The Court dismissed the in the order: following appeal appellant of claim is dismissed because is [T]he party. aggrieved
not an
Reddam v Consumer
Under
Mort
App 754;
gagе Corp,
182 Mich
H. STANDARDOF REVIEW
de
summary
We review
novo decisions on
disposi-
Schs,
tion
Sewell v
motions.
Pub
456 Mich
Southfield
670, 674;
Similarly,
HI. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff contends that it can appeal
par-
an earlier
tial
disposition
ruling
parties
where
have subsequently accepted a case evaluation award.
Initially,
dismissing
appeal
Court
issued an order
entry showing
because there
no
docket
that the trial court had dis
complaint. Unpublished order,
19,
iv
missed count
entered October
(Docket
221987).
rehearing,
No.
Plaintiff filed a motion for
answered,
contended that
trial
court made
clerical error. Defendant
arguing
proper
that dismissal was
from
because
lies
an earlier
partial summary disposition
subsequently
ruling where the
have
accepted
Appeals granted
a mediation award. The
Court
appeal. Unpublished order,
January 13,
and dismissed the
entered
(Docket
221987).
No.
*5
MCR 2.403(M)(1) that, parties’ both acceptance of a case evaluation, en- tered to that evaluation “shall be deemed to dispose all of claims in the action and includes . plаin and interest . . .” The of meaning the words at issue is as follows:
A “claim” is defined as: operative aggregate giving
1. The right facts rise to a existing enforceable 2. court.... The assertion of an any payment right; right equitable remedy, or to an even provisional.... contingent money if or 3. A demand for or property right.... to which one asserts a Law Dic- [Black’s tionary (7th ed).] An “аction” is defined as: process doing something;
1. The conduct or behavior. thing judicial proceed- 2. A done .... 3. A civil or criminal ing. [Id.]
2002] CAM Condo Ass’n Constr plain according meaning Thus, to the of these words, giving right a claim consists of facts rise to a asserted judicial proceeding, in a which is an In action. other encompasses words, the action the claims asserted. of MCR could not be accepting more clear that a case evaluation means summarily that all claims in the action, even those disposed, allowing are dismissed.6 Thus, bifurcation sug- the claims within such actions, as *6 gests, directly contrary would be to the reject plaintiffs position the rule. We, therefore, contrary unambiguous because it is to the court rule’s upon parties’ acceptance that of a case disposed. evaluation all claims in the action be Plaintiff cites numerous decisions of the Court of Appeals positiоn may supporting except as its that it a claim from an action submitted to case evaluation Appeals In Reddam, 2.403. the Court of explicit examined the former, version, less of MCR explained acceptance 2.403,7and of a case evalu- essentially judgment, ation is a consent but that pаrties may they show submitted less than all claims of an action to case evaluation. 6 explains 2.403(A)(1), This conclusion is mirrored in MCR which that it action, action, is the civil not the claims within the civil that is submitted
to case evaluation: may any A court to case in submit evaluation civil action money sought primarily damagеs
the relief
....
7
31, 1990,
provided:
(M)(l)
Before March
MCR 2.403
panel’s evaluation, judgment
If all the
will be
amount,
entered in
which includes all
interest
judgment.
to the date of
465 Mich 549
556
acceptance
entry
to the
of a
of a
is,
essence,
judgment.
a consent
mediation evaluation
280, 286;
Barnett,
App
NW2d
v
170 Mich
See Pelshaw
910;
(1988),
grounds 431 Mich
modified on other
may
Furthermore,
(1988).
one
not
from a
NW2d 77
Kistler,
Dybata
judgment,
consent
order or decree.
68;
Finally,
App 65,
agree
Mich
These
were followed in
Court of
cases that construed the current
version of MCR
Joan Automotive
2.403(M)(1). See
Industries,
Check,
App 383, 386-390;
Inc v
214 Mich
(1995),
Corp,
These decisions allow а to make a that “less than all issues were submitted” to showing parties case evaluation. the involved in the Allowing process case evaluation such a showing make has permitted in if basis the court rule. Even Reddam approach such an under less detailed plainly former MCR there is no warrant for 2.403(M), in that mаnner under the of the proceeding current version of MCR 2.403(M)(1): CAM Constr v Ass’n Condo Dissenting J. Kelly, panel’s accept evaluation, judgment
If all the evaluation, in will be entered accordance with the unless paid days within amount award is after notifi- acceptances, cation of case the court shall dis- рrejudice. miss the with or action dismissal dispose shall be deemed claims in the action and includes all interest it and to the date is entered. [Emphasis added.] explained, unambiguous language
As we have our evidences desire to avoid bifurcation of civil actions submitted to case evaluation. To thе extent progeny sug- that Reddarn and its have been read to gest parties may except claims from case evalua- tion rule, under the current these cases are overruled. panel’s If all evaluation, the case is over. present parties accepted
In the case, both panel’s case and evaluation, defendant sent required days. twenty-eight check within In those cir- granted cumstances, the circuit court should have dismiss, defendant’s without condition or Thus, reservation. because the circuit court should entirety, have dismissed this in its case the Court of plaintiff’s did not err it when dismissed the apрeal. Accordingly, claim of we affirm the dismissal Appeals. 7.302(F)(1). order of the Court of Corrigan, C.J., and Weaver, Taylor, Young, JJ., with Cavanagh, concurred J. Markman, judge’s (dissenting). J. I that the believe Kelly, statements on the record make clear that he intended plaintiff’s appellate rights respecting pre- iv count be me, final also, served in the order. It obvious to plaintiff reasonably judge both the relied on *8 Mich 549 Dissenting by Kelly, J. interpretation made Reddam1 uryust apply progeny. Therefore, it is and its plaintiffs reading rule more strict court appeal. I for remand would summary disposition ruling its on review merits. Mortgage Corp, Reddam Consumers NW2d App 754;