Awarding attorney fees & costs after a mistrial; Persichini v William Beaumont Hosp; Benmark v Steffen; Failure to accurately address the actual basis for the trial court’s ruling

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court concluded that defendants did not “accurately address the actual basis for the trial court’s ruling that” they challenged on appeal, and thus they abandoned their claim of error. The case arose from a dispute involving the renovation of plaintiffs’ home. Defendants “prevailed at a trial that followed the grant of a mistrial[.]” On appeal, they challenged an earlier ruling by the trial court awarding plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. Defendants argued the trial court erred in doing so “because a trial court is prohibited from awarding costs and attorney fees after granting a mistrial unless the sanctioned party engaged in egregious misconduct that caused the mistrial.” They cited Persichini and Benmark. But the record here indicated “that the trial court awarded costs and attorney fees to plaintiffs for prevailing on defendants’ motion for summary disposition that was predicated on an issue that the [trial] court determined was untimely raised by defendants for the first time during the second day of trial rather than previously through a timely summary disposition motion that complied with [its] scheduling order. Contrary to defendants’ assertions on appeal, the trial court did not sanction defendants for causing a mistrial.” As a result of defendants’ failure to dispute the actual basis of the trial court’s ruling, the court expressly refrained “from opining on the propriety or correctness of any of the trial court’s rulings . . . .” Rather, its analysis was solely confined to the arguments defendants advanced on appeal. After carefully reviewing the appellate briefs and the record, the court found that defendants did not articulate any legal error or present “any argument that would warrant reversal or modification of the” trial court judgment. Thus, it held that they “failed to establish a basis for appellate relief.” Affirmed.