Motion for relief from judgment; Motion to amend pending motion; MCR 6.502(F); Motion for reconsideration

Given that there was “no order denying the original motion for relief from judgment[,]” the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to amend his motion for relief from judgment as well as his motion for reconsideration. The court did not address his substantive arguments as it was “impossible to review whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment because the trial court’s order doing so was previously vacated and defendant’s motion was not addressed again.” The trial court’s 5/23 order addressed his 5/22 motions to amend his motion for relief from judgment and for reconsideration. But in ruling on those motions, it did not acknowledge that the court had already vacated its 12/21 order addressing the original motion for relief from judgment. It did “not appear that the trial court was even aware of” the court’s 8/22 order. “The trial court erred by holding that defendant’s [5/22] motion to amend his motion for relief from judgment should be denied because his motion for relief from judgment had already been denied.” Given that its order as to his “motion for relief from judgment had been vacated and no new order had been issued, defendant could now move to amend his pending motion for relief from judgment.” Further, in denying his motion for reconsideration, the trial court “did not appear to be aware that its order denying relief from judgment had already been vacated. It did not consider the matters alluded to in” the court’s 8/22 order. Thus, its “order denying reconsideration fell outside the range of reasonable and principled and outcomes.” Vacated and remanded. On remand, “the trial court must permit defendant an opportunity to again move to amend his motion for relief from judgment. After deciding whether to grant the motion to amend, the trial court then must consider anew [his] motion for relief from judgment, whether amended or not, and in accordance with the instructions in” the court’s prior remand order.