Opinion
Docket No. 144721. COA No. 297819.
2014-03-26
Scott and Jeanne WOODBURY, Plaintiffs, and Center Woods, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. RES–CARE PREMIER, INC., Defendant–Appellee, and Ruth Averill, Defendant.
Order
This Court granted leave to appeal on November 7, 2012, 493 Mich. 881, 821 N.W.2d 888, and the case was submitted for judgment. By order of July 26, 2013, the parties were ordered to provide supplemental briefing and the Clerk was directed to schedule this case for resubmission in the October 2013 session. 494 Mich. 879, 833 N.W.2d 330. Subsequently, the parties stipulated that the case had been settled and that the appeal should be dismissed. MCR 7.316(A)(7). On order of the Court, the appeal is DISMISSED and the January 19, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals, 295 Mich.App. 232, 814 N.W.2d 308 (2012), is VACATED. MARKMAN, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).
Given that the parties have stipulated that this case has been settled and that the appeal should be dismissed, and given that this Court has accepted that stipulation, the case is now clearly moot. Because of this, I do not believe that we possess the authority to do anything other than dismiss the appeal as the parties have requested us to do. Accordingly, while I concur in the decision to dismiss this appeal, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is well established that “[t]he judicial power ... is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.” Anway v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co., 211 Mich. 592, 616, 179 N.W. 350 (1920) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As a result, “this Court does not reach moot questions or declare principles or rules of law that have no practical legal effect in the case before” it. Federated Publications, Inc. v. Lansing, 467 Mich. 98, 112, 649 N.W.2d 383 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Herald Co., Inc. v. Eastern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Regents, 475 Mich. 463, 719 N.W.2d 19 (2006). That is, “[m]ootness precludes the adjudication of a claim where the actual controversy no longer exists, such as where the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Mich. Chiropractic Council v. Comm'r of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 475 Mich. 363, 371 n. 15, 716 N.W.2d 561 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lansing Schs. Ed. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich. 349, 792 N.W.2d 686 (2010). Accordingly, “[w]here the facts of a case make clear that a litigated issue has become moot, a court is, of course, bound to take note of such fact and dismiss the suit....” Id. at 373, 716 N.W.2d 561 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In the instant case, because there is no longer an actual controversy between the parties, the case is moot and we are therefore bound to dismiss the appeal. We lack the authority to take any additional actions, including vacating the Court of Appeals' judgment. Although perhaps there is some concern that while the Court of Appeals' judgment may not harm the parties in the instant case, it may harm parties in future cases, it is important that this Court exercise traditional understandings of the “judicial power” and refrain from fixing things that are outside this Court's immediate authority to fix. As asserted by three Justices in dissent in Anglers of the AuSable, Inc. v. Dep't of Environmental Quality, 488 Mich. 69, 105–106, 793 N.W.2d 596 (2010) (YOUNG, J., dissenting), vacated 489 Mich. 884, 796 N.W.2d 240 (2011):
Indeed, plaintiffs do not now contend that they have an immediate injury at stake; they nevertheless want this Court to rule on the substantive legal issues—for the benefit of future cases. This is the definition of mootness. Again, the [ Street R. Co. of E.S. v. Wildman, 58 Mich. 286, 287, 25 N.W. 193 (1885) ] decision provides guidance:
It was suggested on the hearing that we ought to settle the rights of the parties so that the principle established might be a guide in other cases likely to arise. But courts of equity will not lend their aid by injunction for the enforcement of a right or the prevention of a wrong in the abstract, not connected with any injury or damage to the person seeking relief, nor when such injury or damage can be fully and amply recovered in an action at law. Nor are courts of equity established to decide or declare abstract questions of right for the future guidance of suitors. [Emphasis altered.]