Case Name: WATERFORD SAND & GRAVEL CO v. OAKLAND DISPOSAL, INC
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1992-07-06
Citations: 194 Mich. App. 571
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 115431, 116002
Parties: WATERFORD SAND & GRAVEL CO v OAKLAND DISPOSAL, INC
Judges: Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Jansen and T. J. Lesinski, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 194
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
WATERFORD SAND & GRAVEL CO v OAKLAND DISPOSAL, INC
Docket Nos. 115431, 116002.
Submitted January 7, 1992, at Detroit.
Decided July 6, 1992, at 9:15 a.m.
Waterford Sand & Gravel Co. brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against Oakland Disposal, Inc., which filed a counterclaim. The court, Hilda R. Gage, J., following a bench trial, entered verdicts of no cause of action with respect to both the complaint and the counterclaim and denied Oakland’s claim for mediation sanctions. The plaintiff and the defendant each appealed as of right. The appeals were consolidated.
The Court of Appeals held:
Because, despite repeated requests by the Court of Appeals, .neither party complied with the court rules that require that either a full transcript of the proceedings in the trial court or a settled statement of facts be filed in the Court of Appeals, the issues raised on appeal by each party are deemed abandoned.
Appeals dismissed.
Hyman & Lippitt (by J. Leonard Hyman), for the plaintiff.
James M. Cohen, for the defendant.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Jansen and T. J. Lesinski, JJ.
Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
Following a bench trial in this matter, the trial court entered verdicts of no cause of action on plaintiffs complaint and on defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals as of right the finding that it had no cause of action against defendant, and defendant appeals as of right the trial court's denial of actual costs based on plaintiffs rejection of the mediation award.
We decline to address the merits of the issues raised on appeal in this matter. In spite of repeated requests by this Court, the parties have failed to provide us with a transcript of critical proceedings in the trial court. We have not been provided with a transcript for six days of what appears to be a seven-day bench trial. In view of the parties' noncompliance with MCR 7.204, 7.210, 7.212, and failure or refusal to provide this Court with a full transcript of the proceedings below, we consider the issues raised by both parties abandoned on appeal. Baker v Wayne Co Bd of Road Comm'rs, 185 Mich App 82, 89; 460 NW2d 566 (1990); People v Johnson, 173 Mich App 706, 707; 434 NW2d 218 (1988).
We note that the parties could have cured their failure to submit a full transcript of the proceedings below by submitting to this Court an agreed-upon statement of facts in accordance with MCR 7.210(B)(1)(e).
Both appeals are dismissed with prejudice and without costs.