Divorce; Motion to transfer venue; Entry of a consent judgment; Mootness; In re Detmer/Beaudry; Stipulation that the consent judgment did not render this appeal moot; In re Estate of Finlay; Lack of any practical effect; Abstract issue of law; Gleason v Kincaid

Holding that the appeal of the denial of a motion to transfer venue in this divorce case was moot, the court dismissed it. After the court granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal the ruling, the trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce. That judgment contained “unique provisions purporting to preserve the venue issue for appellate review and to condition the parties’ choice of venue for enforcement proceedings on the outcome of this appeal.” But despite those provisions, the court held that the case was moot for three reasons. One, it “was not bound by the parties’ stipulation that the” judgment did not render the appeal moot. Courts are not bound by parties’ stipulations of law. Two, it found that “rendering a decision on the venue issue would have no practical effect because the case no longer rests upon existing facts or rights[.]” The judgment provision stating that enforcement proceedings could be brought in the specified circuit or district court, “‘as applicable, subject to the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the pending venue issue,’” only created an illusion that the court’s ruling “would have any legal consequence.” Given that the “parties agreed to remain bound by the consent judgment as a settlement agreement even if defendant prevailed in this appeal,” the court’s decision would not affect the divorce’s outcome. And in the judgment, they effectively consented to the trial court’s “authority over enforcement or other postjudgment proceedings regardless of what” the court held. Third, the venue issue now presented “an abstract question of law” and such questions are moot. Finally, the court added that the limited exception to the mootness doctrine did “not apply because the venue issue will not evade judicial review.” Because a trial court or the court “may enter an order staying trial-court proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal . . . [a] similarly situated party who is successful in staying proceedings or willing to proceed through trial could bring the same issue to” the court in the future.