Governmental immunity; Sufficiency of the record for appellate review

Concluding that the record was insufficient “to allow for meaningful appellate review[,]” the court reversed the trial court order granting summary disposition to defendants-Patel and Detroit on the basis of governmental immunity, and remanded. The court noted that the trial court granted summary disposition “without oral argument and without issuing a written opinion that would enable us to determine if the trial court reached the right outcome for the proper reasons.” All the court had “to review is a one-page order, entered in [3/23], which reads, ‘Suresh Patel and the City of Detroit have Governmental Immunity.”’ The 4/23 order dismissing them from the case was “similarly devoid of explanation, stating” only that their “‘Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED, for the reason they [sic] are entitled to governmental immunity.’” There was “no explanation for how the trial court reached this outcome.” The court recognized “that courts need not make detailed findings of fact or conclusions of law ‘unless findings are required by a particular rule,’ MCR 2.517(A)(4), and that MCR 2.116 does not require the court to go to such lengths. Nevertheless, the trial court has effectively frustrated any appellate review here.” Not only did the court “have no record with which to evaluate whether the [trial] court properly granted summary disposition to defendants as to plaintiffs’ governmental immunity claim, it is likewise unclear whether [it] intended to grant summary disposition of plaintiffs’ state constitutional law claim under MCR 2.116(C)(7), or whether it simply overlooked that claim.” The court found that without “at least minimal explanation from the trial court, we cannot discharge our duty to either correct or affirm a trial court determination. The practice of entering orders without explanation is problematic because it precludes meaningful appellate review, but it is also harmful to every single litigant whose case is disposed of in this manner, even those who benefit from the ultimate outcome. Justice requires more than what was done here.” The court retained jurisdiction.