Court Opinion

ID: 9693324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:36:57.462788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:44.763188
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur in those portions of the majority opinion which reverse and modify the interest award made by the trial court in this case. In my judgment, however, the trial court’s award of the cost of the arbitration proceedings ‘should also be reversed.
In Dittus v Geyman, 68 Mich App 433, 438; 242 NW2d 800 (1976), we cited the well-established rule that costs are recoverable only when there is statutory authority providing for the awarding of costs. The fact that MCL 600.2401 et seq.; MSA 27A.2401 et seq., does not expressly limit allowable costs to those incurred after the filing of the petition in circuit court does not amount to a statutory authorization of an award of costs incurred prior to the filing of the petition. Nor, in my opinion, does the word "proceedings” in GCR 1963, 769.12, refer to anything other than the judicial proceedings involved in the confirmation of the award. See also 5 Honigman & Hawkins, *410Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 457, wherein the authors state:
"The court may tax the costs of the judicial proceedings in relation to arbitration as in other civil actions. Rule 526.” (Emphasis added.)
Although the rule provides and the Honigman & Hawkins comments explain that, if the award fails to provide for the fees and expenses of the arbitrators, the court can tax them as provided by law in cases of reference, it does not provide that the expenses of the parties in the arbitration proceeding may be taxed as costs.
I would reverse the trial court’s award of the costs of the arbitration proceeding.