Claim for an attorney fee based on a contingency-fee agreement; Rippey v Wilson; Quantum meruit; Reynolds v Polen; Amendment of a 2014 default judgment; MCR 2.612(C)(1)(e) & (f); Waiver; Motion to renew judgment; MCL 600.5809; Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to renew the judgment at the time; MCR 7.208(A); Sanctions; MCR 1.109(E); Tien Chin Yu Machinery Manufacturing Company, Ltd (TCY)

Addressing multiple appeals, the court held in Docket No. 362481 that while appellant-Hilborn did not show he was entitled to a contingency fee, an evidentiary hearing as to his quantum-meruit claim was warranted. In Docket No. 364538, it rejected plaintiff-Alcorn’s claim that the trial court erred in amending a 2014 default judgment against defendant-TCY in 2022 because TCY waited too long to request this relief and did not establish sufficient grounds justifying it. In Docket No. 366030, it found no error in the trial court’s decision to (1) vacate “its renewal of the 2014 judgment against TCY because” Alcorn’s ex parte motion to renew “omitted the judgment’s 2022 amendment” and (2) impose sanctions. These appeals arose after “Alcorn was seriously injured in an industrial accident” and sued TCY and defendant-Latitude Machinery Corp. In his appeal, Hilborn asserted that he was entitled to an attorney fee based on “a contingency-fee agreement for his work in securing a default judgment against Latitude. Alternatively,” he sought a hearing on his entitlement to fees for this work based on quantum meruit. Both he and appellee-Parsons cited Rippey. The court found that, “to the extent Parsons maintains that, under Rippey, Hilborn’s eventual abandonment of the Latitude matter categorically forecloses him from receiving any compensation whatsoever for his prior work,” it disagreed. But it did “not read Rippey to support the notion that Hilborn would be entitled to a contingency-fee award for that work, given his abandonment before it was complete. In light of this authority and Hilborn’s own arguments on appeal,” the court concluded “that a contingency-fee award is not appropriate because Hilborn did not complete his services in the case against Latitude.” But it agreed with him “that recovery in quantum meruit for his work on the Latitude matter might still be appropriate.” In Docket No. 364538, the court found, among other things, that under “the very unusual circumstances of” this case, relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) “was within the range of principled outcomes.” It determined that “there was good reason why TCY’s request for relief did not come sooner than it did, and injustice would plainly result if, nonetheless, Alcorn were allowed to secure an unlawful and inequitable double recovery of” the $1,574,000 damages award. In Docket No. 362481 the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It affirmed in Docket Nos. 364538 and 366030.