Court Opinion

ID: 9707825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:22:20.476048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.611462
License: Public Domain

Doctoroff, C.J.
(concurring). I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for attorney fees under MCR 2.405. However, I disagree that Butzer v Camelot Hall Convalescent Centre, Inc (After Remand), 201 Mich App 275; 505 NW2d 862 (1993), misapprehends the analysis articulated in Gudewicz v Matt’s Catering, Inc, 188 Mich App 639; 470 NW2d 654 (1991), and assert that Butzer was correctly decided.
In Gudewicz, this Court balanced the competing interests and found that, when a trial court’s sole reason for denying a defendant’s request for fees under MCR 2.405 is the plaintiffs reasonable rejection of a defendant’s offer of judgment, the trial court abuses its discretion in denying fees. Butzer followed this holding when confronted with nearly identical facts. I do not believe that the absence of *343the phrase "on balance” from the language in Butzer indicates that Butzer misunderstood the reasoning set forth in Gudewicz.
In the instant case, the trial court’s only acceptable reason for denying defendant’s request for fees is plaintiff’s reasonable rejection of defendant’s offer of judgment. Such a reason is insufficient to support the trial court’s denial of fees. Gudewicz at 645; Butzer at 278. To hold otherwise would be to circumvent the policy behind MCR 2.405.