From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LAC v. GLS

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Sep 27, 2022
No. 363045 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2022)

Opinion

363045

09-27-2022

LAC v. GLS


LC No. 21-006727-PP

ORDER

Elizabeth L. Gleicher, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.203(F)(1), orders:

The claim of appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, because the August 30, 2022 attorney fee order is not appealable by right. The specific provisions of MCR 3.709(B)(1), not the general provisions of MCR 7.203(A), apply to determine the orders that are appealable by right in cases involving personal protection orders. See Hill v L F Transportation, Inc, 277 Mich.App. 500, 507; 746 N.W.2d 118 (2008) (citation omitted) (rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of court rules) and Bauer v Saginaw Co, 332 Mich.App. 174, 199; 955 N.W.2d 553 (2020) (if two statutes conflict, the more specific prevails). See also Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich. 601, 613; 751 N.W.2d 463 (2008) (specific provisions prevail over general ones). The August 30,2022 order does not fall within one of the two types of orders specifically appealable by right in personal protection order cases. MCR 3.709(B)(1). And, MCR 3.709(B)(2) provides that "[a]ppeals of all other orders are by leave to appeal." (Emphasis added). Dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a late application for leave to appeal under MCR 7.205(A)(4), provided such a filing meets all requirements under the court rules and is not time-barred.


Summaries of

LAC v. GLS

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Sep 27, 2022
No. 363045 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2022)
Case details for

LAC v. GLS

Case Details

Full title:LAC v. GLS

Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Date published: Sep 27, 2022

Citations

No. 363045 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2022)