Opinion
358211
09-23-2021
Mark Snyder v. Genoa Charter Township
LC No. 06-022178-CH
Kirsten Frank Kelly, Stephen L. Borrello JudgesORDER
Kathleen Jansen, Presiding Judge
The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Contrary to appellant's argument, in a straightforward reading, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) uses the phrase "the first judgment or order" as a singular phrase to refer to either the first judgment or first order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates the rights and liabilities of the parties so as to be a final judgment or final order. In particular, the use of the definite article "the" in "the first judgment or order" contemplates that, apart from the inapplicable proviso in MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) for a new final judgment or order entered after reversal of a prior final judgment or order, there would be only one judgment or order that qualifies as a final judgment or final order in a case. See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 458-459; 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000) (regarding use of definite article "the" in statutory phrase). Appellant does not dispute that the August 6, 2006 consent judgment was a final judgment under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i). Thus, appellant has not shown that the July 29, 2021 postjudgment order is a final order under that provision. While the unpublished authority cited by appellant is not precedentially binding in any event, MCR 7.215(C)(1), in two of the unpublished opinions cited by appellant this Court at most assumed that it had jurisdiction over appeals of right without analyzing the point. A point assumed without consideration is not decided. In re Apportionment of State Legislature - 1982, 413 Mich. 96, 113-114; 321 N.W.2d 565 (1982). Further, the jurisdictional discussion in In re Forfeiture/Nuisance Abatement of 14541 W 8 Mile Rd, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 299416, issued October 13, 2011), actually supports our conclusion that the July 29, 2021 postjudgment order is not appealable of right.