The court’s jurisdiction; Final judgments or orders; MCR 7.203(A)(1); Discretion to treat a claim as if on leave granted under MCR 7.203(B)(1)

The court held that appellants had no right to appeal under MCR 7.203(A)(1) because the order they appealed from was not final, and it was not persuaded that it should exercise its discretion to treat their claim of appeal as a granted application for leave to appeal. Thus, it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case arose from a business dispute. In 2024, appellants “moved to ‘quash and/or set aside’” an order the trial court entered in 9/23 authorizing a chief restructuring officer to seize their assets. On 5/22/24, the trial court held a hearing on the motions to quash and, treating them as motions for reconsideration, denied them. In its 6/24 written order, it “stated that the order ‘does not resolve the last pending claim nor close the case.’ Appellants moved for reconsideration and the trial court denied that as well in a” 7/24 order. On appeal, after the court ordered supplemental briefing, the parties unanimously agreed “that, contrary to their initial claim, appellants had no right to appeal under MCR 7.203(A)(1), and the” 6/24 written order confirmed they were right. They should have instead filed an application for leave to appeal, but did not do so.