Court Opinion

ID: 9691608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:43:06.479366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:23.349575
License: Public Domain

Hoekstra, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. MCR 7.216(C)(1), the court rule authorizing damages in this case, states that this Court “may . . . assess actual or punitive damages or take other disciplinary action when it determines that an appeal or any of the proceedings in an appeal was vexatious.” The term “may” designates a permissive provision. Jordan v Jarvis, 200 Mich App 445, 451; 505 NW2d 279 (1993). Thus, this Court may assess damages but is not required to do so. Sanctions are authorized in a court’s “discretion, on final review, as the totality of facts and circumstances may require.” In re Mathers, 371 Mich 516, 538; 124 NW2d 878 (1963) (discussing a prior version of the court rule).
In my opinion, the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case does not require this Court to impose sanctions. Defendant has already suffered harm by losing the opportunity to have her case reviewed. See, e.g., In re Dihle Estate, 161 Mich App 150, 160-161; 410 NW2d 303 (1987). Moreover, I perceive no benefit in prolonging this acrimonious litiga*130tion by remanding the matter to the trial court for a determination of damages. See, e.g., Mathers, supra at 538-539 (declining to assess damages in the child custody case).