Request for a declaratory judgment; MCR 2.605(A); MCL 24.264; MCL 24.263; “Interested person”; “Interested” & “affect”; Injunctive relief; Striking a reply brief under MCR 7.111(A)(3); Harmless error; Protective order; MCR 2.302(C)(1); Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4); Jurisdiction over the appeal; MCR 7.203(A)(1); Bureau of Construction Codes (BCC)

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed the orders in both dockets in these consolidated appeals arising from plaintiff-licensed boiler installer and mechanical contractor’s (Forner) request for a declaratory ruling from defendant-BCC. Forner contended that “the trial court erred by affirming the BCC’s decision on the basis that he, a licensed boiler installer and holder of the boiler installation permits for the boilers installed at [nonparty-church], was not an interested person for purposes of challenging the boiler inspector’s interpretation of the boiler rules as applied to” the church’s boilers. The court found none of his arguments were compelling. It concluded that “the trial court did not clearly err by affirming the BCC’s decision. By holding that Forner was not an interested person for purposes of MCL 24.263, the court impliedly affirmed that the BCC’s decision was not contrary to law and that it was supported by competent evidence on the whole record. The trial court’s explanation that, because Forner was not an interested person, he could not appeal the BCC’s decision to the circuit court was incongruous with the trial court’s ultimate ruling. Nevertheless,” the court could affirm its “ruling because it reached the right result.” Among other things, the court determined “Forner’s argument that MCL 339.5601(8) required the BCC to provide him written notice of the boiler rules violations” lacked merit and “nothing in the boiler rules transfers to the boiler installer any of the owner’s responsibility” for making sure a boiler is properly installed and certified. The court also held that the trial court erred by striking the reply brief he filed under MCR 7.111(A)(3), but concluded the error was harmless. Further, it determined that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dispensing with oral argument and issuing a protective order staying discovery until [it] could resolve the dispositive motion.” Finally, the court held that the trial court did not err in granting the BCC summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) given the absence of an actual controversy for purposes of MCR 2.605(A)(1), or by ruling that “it lacked jurisdiction to grant Forner a declaratory judgment under MCL 24.264.”