Jurisdiction to hear an appeal; MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) & (iv); Whether the scope of plaintiffs’ appeal was limited to the issue of postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees & costs; Sanctions under MCL 600.2591 & MCR 1.109(E)(5)-(7); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury; Amount of sanctions; Reasonable fees; Smith v. Khouri

The court held that plaintiffs’ appeal of right was limited to the postjudgment orders of attorney fees and costs to defendants. Also, it upheld the award of sanctions under MCL 600.2591 and MCR 1.109(E)(6) and (7), and concluded that the $13,642.50 awarded as reasonable attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion. The court first addressed defendants’ claim that the scope of plaintiffs’ appeal was limited to the issue of attorney fees and costs. Judge H’s 10/2/18 order was a final order, appealable as of right. Judge H denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on 10/22/18, meaning that the time for them to appeal as of right expired 11/13/18. “Plaintiffs did not appeal within that time.” Instead, on 6/27/19, they filed an appeal of Judge R’s 6/7/19 postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and costs. Although those orders were appealable as of right, the appeal of right was limited to the attorney fees and costs questions. “And plaintiffs cannot use an appeal from these orders as an attempt to untimely appeal the previous final order granting summary disposition.” In short, their challenges to the grant of summary disposition were “outside the scope of their appeal of right from the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and costs.” Because the time for plaintiffs to appeal the 10/2/18 “summary disposition order passed without plaintiffs filing an appeal of right, plaintiffs’ ability to appeal this order is limited to an application for leave to appeal.” Yet, they had not sought leave to appeal. The court “may exercise its discretion to consider issues as on leave granted.” However, the court’s “discretion to consider an issue as on leave granted is limited by the six-month period in MCR 7.205(G)(3).” Here, the six-month period began to run on the date that Judge H denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. They did not file an appeal until 6/27/19, “well after the time to file a late application for leave to appeal had expired.” In these circumstances, their appeal was untimely and the court declined to “consider plaintiffs’ untimely appeal as on leave granted.” As to the award of sanctions, the court held that the trial court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the stated “reasons for awarding sanctions under MCL 600.2591 and MCR 1.109(E) are sound.”