-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

TEREES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 23, 2017

v No. 330378 Muskegon Circuit Court JERVISS-FETHKE INSURANCE AGENCY, LC No. 13-049185-CK

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B ORRELLO

, P.J., and M ARKEY and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court’s order vacating it s previous order granting plaintiff’s motion for insta llment payments. We affirm.

This case arises from case evaluation sanctions ordered agains t plaintiff. After plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to litigate a negligence claim against defendant, the trial court ordered plaintiff to pay case evaluation sanctions in the amount of $14 ,041.70. After plaintiff repeatedly

failed to attend a creditor’s ex amination, defendant requested a garnishment of plaintiff’s wages, and a writ of garnishment was entered on May 26, 2015. On June 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion and affidavit for installment payments, which the trial court denied on July 14, 2015. Plaintiff filed a second motion for installment payments on Jul y 27, 2015, which the trial court denied on August 13, 2015, because plaintiff had transferred so me of her rental properties for no

consideration after the trial cou rt entered its judgment for sa nctions.

On September 4, 2015, plaintiff submitted a third motion and a ffidavit for installment payments. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff submitted an order to the court clerk for a judgment on this motion. On September 21, the trial court, under Judge Marietti, granted plaintiff’s motion. The same motion was later denied on September 28, 2014 , by Judge Hicks, who had presided over all other aspects of plaintiff’s case up to that point. On October 2, 2015, Judge Hicks vacated the September 21, 2015 order regarding plaintiff’ s motion for installment payments because that the order was issued in error.

On appeal, plaintiff’s sole ar gument is that the trial court e rred by vacating the September 21, 2015 order. We disagree. “This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to grant relief from an order.” Fisher v Belcher , 269 Mich App 247, 262; 713 NW2d 6 (2005). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of-2- reasonable and principled outcomes.” Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine , LLC, 499 Mich 544, 552; 886 NW2d 113 (2016).

Under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a), a trial court may grant a party reli ef from judgment on the grounds of “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neg lect.” A “mistake” under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) “may be a mistake of the trial court.” Altman v Nelson , 197 Mich App 467, 477; 495 NW2d 826 (1992).

Here, in vacating the September 21, 2015 order, the trial cour t noted that when plaintiff’s motion was granted, it was techni cally still pending before Jud ge Hicks and had been neither granted nor denied. The trial c ourt also noted that its error in granting plaintiff’s motion was a result of plaintiff’s filing a motion with the clerk’s office d uring Judge Hicks’s absence. Further,

when the trial court denied th is same motion on September 28, 2 015, the trial court noted that plaintiff failed to present any new evidence to the trial court . Thus, it appears that the trial court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion was inadvertent and a mista ke because the court intended for the motion to be denied. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by vacating its previous order under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a).

To the extent that plaintiff ar gues that the trial court abuse d its discretion because the order was properly entered unde r MCR 3.104(B), her argument is without merit. Under MCR 3.104(B), the trial court may grant a motion for installment pa yments if no objections are filed within 14 days. Plaintiff correctly asserts that the trial cou rt’s grant of her motion was not error under MCR 3.104(B). However, plai ntiff’s argument does not add ress the trial court’s mistake in that it intended to deny her motion but erroneously granted it during Judge Hicks’s absence when the motion had yet to be either granted or denied. Moreov er, plaintiff does not argue that the trial court abused its discretion by vacating the order und er MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) because the

order was entered inadve rtently and by mistake.

We affirm. As the prevailing par ty defendant may tax costs pu rsuant to MCR 7.219.

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello /s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Michael J. Kelly