Opinion
363259 363406
10-27-2022
Estate of Michael Knudsen v. Geoffrey Fieger
LC Nos. 2016-031437-NM; 2016-031442-NM
Amy Ronayne Krause Presiding Judge Stephen L. Borrello Michael F. Gadola Judges
ORDER
The Court orders that the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The motion to waive the requirements of MCR 7.209 is also GRANTED. Further, the motion for stay of proceedings pending appeals is GRANTED. Further trial court proceedings in these cases are STAYED until these appeals are decided.
Gadola, J.
I would deny the motion for stay. This panel has twice previously granted applications for leave to appeal in this matter, over my objection, on the eve of a trial scheduled to begin on Monday, October 31, 2022. See Estate of Kundsen v Fieger, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 363259, issued October 21, 2022) (Gadola, J. dissenting) &Estate of Knudsen v Fieger, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 363406, issued October 25, 2022) (Gadola, J., dissenting). And now this panel, again over my objection, grants a motion to stay the trial pending resolution of the previously granted applications for leave to appeal. This serves to prevent the trial judge, who has presided over this matter for the past six-and-a-half years, from presiding over the trial, as he is set to retire at the end of this calendar year. This case will now linger in the appellate process for an additional 18 months to 2 years pending resolution of the previously granted applications for leave to appeal, at which time it will return to the trial court to be resolved by a judge having no prior experience with it. I cannot help but suspect that this is gamesmanship on the part of defendants-appellants, designed to delay the onset of trial, which we have now rewarded. While defendants-appellants may in fact have meritorious arguments with respect to the subject matter of their previously granted applications for leave, those arguments could be addressed by this Court in the normal course of litigation as part of an appeal of right following trial and entry of a final order concluding proceedings in the trial court. This Court need not set out to "right every (perceived) wrong" in advance of trial when other avenues exist to correct error, particularly under the circumstances present here.