Breach of contract; Employment agreement; Bonuses; Judicial questioning; MRE 614; Preservation; Curative instruction; Frivolous counterclaim; Sanctions; MCL 600.2591; MCR 1.109(E); Attorney fees

The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief from the jury verdict based on the trial court’s questioning of a witness, but that remand was required for adequate findings supporting sanctions for defendant’s counterclaim. Plaintiff sued defendant for unpaid bonuses under an employment agreement. The jury found defendant breached the agreement and awarded plaintiff $38,000 while rejecting defendant’s unjust-enrichment counterclaim. On appeal, the court first held that defendant did not preserve its judicial-questioning claim because MRE 614(c) permits a party to object to judicial questioning “either at the time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present,” and defendant “did neither.” The court also held that relief was not warranted despite the trial court’s probing questions because review occurred “through the ‘heavy presumption of judicial impartiality,’” and the trial court instructed the jury that “nothing I say is meant to reflect my opinions about the facts of this case.” Thus, the questioning did not create a “manifest injustice” requiring reversal despite defendant’s failure to object. As to sanctions, the court held that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings before awarding plaintiff $48,940 in attorney fees for a frivolous counterclaim. The court explained that “‘[a] trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error,’” but the trial court merely granted sanctions “[f]or the reasons stated” in plaintiff’s motion and brief. Because plaintiff offered “several alternative reasons” for sanctions, it was “‘impossible to ascertain whether the trial court clearly erred’” in finding the counterclaim frivolous. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further findings on sanctions.