Subject-matter jurisdiction; A circuit court’s appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.103; Court of Appeals jurisdiction over a circuit court order; MCR 7.203(A)(1); Abandonment of an issue; Berger v Berger; Board of Water & Light (BWL); Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

The court held that “the circuit court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal of a fellow circuit court judge’s order granting defendant summary disposition of” his claims. According to defendant-city, plaintiff filed a complaint against it in 2018, challenging the actions of its BWL. The circuit court apparently dismissed that action. Plaintiff then initiated a second action against defendant in 8/24, which was also dismissed. Rather than file a claim of appeal, plaintiff appealed to another judge in the circuit, who dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “It is this order from which plaintiff has appealed,” not the 8/24 order summarily disposing of plaintiff’s claims. “Nevertheless, both parties have directed their appellate arguments to the merits of the summary disposition order,” which was not before the court. “Consequently, plaintiff has abandoned any argument that the circuit court erred when it determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over” his appeal. “Regardless, the circuit court did not err when it dismissed plaintiff’s appeal.” As the circuit “court reasoned, a circuit court’s appellate jurisdiction is governed by MCR 7.103, which grants jurisdiction over an appeal of right to a circuit court from a final judgment or order of a district or municipal court, a final order or decision of an agency governed by the” APA and a “final order or decision of an agency from which an appeal of right to the circuit court is provided by law, MCR 7.103(A)(1) to (3), none of which apply here. Instead, under MCR 7.203(A)(1),” this court “has jurisdiction over an appeal of right from a final order of the circuit court, like the” 8/24 summary-disposition order. Affirmed.