Court Opinion

ID: 9738464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:53:45.146756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.243971
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse the order of the Court of Appeals. As the majority observes, MCR 6.509(A) governs an appeal from an order resolving a motion for relief from judgment:
Availability of Appeal. Appeals from decisions under this subchapter are by application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals pursuant to MCR 7.205. The 18-month time limit provided by MCR 7.205(F)(3), runs from the decision under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as extending the time to appeal from the original judgment. [Emphasis supplied.]_
*647The court rules expressly provide for a motion for reconsideration of a summary dismissal of a motion for relief from judgment. MCR 6.504(B)(3). Therefore, the mid-February 1992 order resolving that motion was a "decision under this subchapter,” which began the eighteen-month period specified in MCR 7.205(F)(3).1
Because the court rules are designed to simplify practice,2 there is virtue in consistency. Michigan practitioners know that, in general, an appeal period is calculated from the daté that a timely postjudgment motion is resolved.3 I see no reason to adopt a different approach with regard to MCR 7.205(F)(3).
For these reasons, I would reverse the dismissal order entered by the Court of Appeals, and would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the defendant’s application for leave to appeal.
Levin, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.

 As noted by the majority, the eighteen-month period has been changed to twelve months effective November 1, 1995. Ante, p 646.

 MCR 1.105.

 E.g., MCR 7.101(B)(1)(b), 7.204(A)(1)(b), 7.204(A)(2)(d), 7.205(F)(4), 7.302(C)(2)(c). The 56-day limit of MCR 7.302(C)(3) is treated similarly.