Appellate jurisdiction; Final order; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); Walsh v Taylor; Nunc pro tunc order; Function & limits; Sleboede v Sleboede; Injunctions; Modification or dissolution; Opal Lake Ass’n v Michaywe’ Ltd P’ship

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over defendants’ appeal as of right because the 3/24 nunc pro tunc order was not a final order. Plaintiff-homeowners’ association sued after defendants interfered with members’ use of common grounds. The trial court granted plaintiff’s summary-disposition motion and request for injunctive relief in 4/22. Nearly two years later, after plaintiff sought contempt proceedings, defendants argued the 4/22 order did not expressly include the injunction’s terms, so the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order memorializing the terms it had previously stated on the record. On appeal, the court held that the 3/24 order was not “the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates the rights and liabilities of all the parties” because the 4/22 order had already resolved all claims and counterclaims. The court explained that the “function” of a nunc pro tunc order is only to cure a prior order that omitted action already taken by the court, not to change the prior order or supply action never taken. Because the 3/24 order merely supplied terms previously stated on the record, it did not create appellate jurisdiction as of right. The court added that defendants could still seek modification or dissolution of the injunction in the trial court if circumstances or legal defects warranted it. Dismissed.