Summary
reversing this Court’s opinion in part because, under the raise-or-waive rule, the plaintiff’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court left the issue unpreserved and, therefore, waived
Summary of this case from Mr. Sunshine v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs.Opinion
Docket No. 145205. COA No. 301748.
2013-01-18
Timothy E. BAXTER and Noah T. Baxter, Plaintiffs–Appellants Cross–Appellees, v. Dennis GEURINK, a/k/a Dennis Geurink d/b/a Outdoor Adventures, Defendant–Appellee Cross–Appellant.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 1415131.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Michigan generally follows the “raise or waive” rule of appellate review. Walters v. Nadell, 481 Mich. 377, 387, 751 N.W.2d 431 (2008). Failure to timely raise an issue waives review of that issue on appeal. Id., citing Napier v. Jacobs, 429 Mich. 222, 227, 414 N.W.2d 862 (1987). Because the plaintiffs did not challenge the hourly rate or the amount of time expended before the trial court, the issue regarding actual costs was not preserved for appellate review. Therefore, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. We REMAND this case to the 61st District Court for entry of an order granting the defendant the entire amount of attorney fees and costs requested.
We do not retain jurisdiction.