Opinion
367861
01-10-2024
Mohamad Mohamad v. Auto Owners Insurance Company
LC No. 22-005438-NF
Michael J. Kelly, Colleen A. O'Brien Judges.
ORDER
THOMAS C. CAMERON PRESIDING JUDGE
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2) and MCR 7.216(A)(7), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we VACATE the Wayne Circuit Court's August 4, 2023 order and REMAND this matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with this order. We retain jurisdiction.
"The trial court's decision regarding joinder is reviewed for abuse of discretion," Mason Co v Dep't of Community Health, 293 Mich.App. 462, 489; 820 N.W.2d 192 (2011), and that standard "acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which . . . there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome," Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich. 372, 388; 719 N.W.2d 809 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]rial courts can and will reach different decisions . . . . However, that is the nature of discretionary decisions. The key in each case is that the trial court provide a reasoned basis for its decision." Mich Dep't of Transp v Randolph, 461 Mich. 757, 767-768; 610 N.W.2d 893 (2000) (emphasis added). In the absence of any stated reasoning by the trial court, we are unable to meaningfully review whether it might have abused its discretion by ruling as it did. Indeed, this scenario has become all too commonplace; this Court has been forced to chastise this particular trial judge several times over the past few years for stymying appellate review by using praecipe form orders to rule on motions while also dispensing with oral argument and failing to state any reasoning. See, e.g., Davis v Young, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 2, 2021 (Docket No. 355516), p 3 ("The form order providing no analysis was unacceptable."); id. (Borrello, J., dissenting) (agreeing that "the trial court did not make a legally sufficient record from which this Court could engage in any meaningful review"); Booth v Legacy CHM, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 24, 2021 (Docket No. 358650) ("[T]he trial court did not hold a hearing and entered an order that only stated that the motion was denied without any further explanation. This Court cannot determine whether the trial court conducted the 'searching inquiry' that was required. On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the motion, conduct the necessary inquiry, and articulate its decision to facilitate appellate review."); RK v Progressive Mich. Ins Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 21, 2023 (Docket No. 365757) ("By summarily granting rescission of the subject policy of no-fault insurance against third parties- including the minor children in this case-without first performing an equities analysis including findings of fact . . ., the trial court erred."); McPartlin v RK Equipment Repair, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 6, 2023 (Docket No. 359584), p 7 ("[T]he trial court offered no explanation whatsoever for its decisions on the motions. When no explanation is provided, the parties have no idea why the trial court ruled as it did, the attorneys are hamstrung in trying to present issues for appellate review, and this Court is forced to analyze the rulings of the trial court without the benefit of any reasoning to support the decisions before us. Surely there is a better way, and we trust that the trial court will provide much more support for its decisions in the future."); Al-Ghami v Al-Jahmi, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 14, 2023 (Docket No. 361932) (Jansen, J., concurring), p 1 & n 1 ("I write separately to admonish the trial court's use and entry of a form order to resolve summary disposition, particularly where no oral argument was held. . . . [T]he usage of the form order with merely a checklist of possible outcomes is improper procedure, which the trial court has been cautioned against using before this case."); Arellano v U.S. Ecology Livonia, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 25, 2023 (Docket No. 360668) (remanding for a second time with instructions for the trial court to explain why it had entered a default against a party as a sanction, initially in an order that "wholly failed to articulate its reasoning"). Once again, we implore the trial court to refrain from this practice in the future.
On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the motion for joinder, then issue a written opinion and order deciding it on the merits, which shall include sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit meaningful appellate review. Given the time constraints, the opinion and order on remand shall be issued within 14 days of this order's entry, and appellant shall promptly file a copy with this Court after its issuance.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We retain jurisdiction.