Court Opinion

ID: 9672132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:49:27.60957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.442941
License: Public Domain

O’Connell, P.J.
(dissenting). I concur with the majority opinion to the extent that the trial court erred in referencing the wrong court rule in this case. However, this error is not fatal to plaintiff’s case because this Court may proceed under the appropriate court rule as long as neither party has been *566misled. Cf. Blair v Checker Cab Co, 219 Mich App 667, 670-671; 558 NW2d 439 (1996).1 I also conclude that the trial court properly dismissed this case pursuant to MCR 2.504(A)(2).
With respect to defendant’s motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), the trial court stated, “[T]he Court would find, based on the arguments and the pleadings relating to this motion, and not upon the merits of this case, the Court is satisfied . . . the (C)(8) should be granted” (emphasis supplied). As the majority correctly notes, such a statement is nonsensical. A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) is properly granted or denied only on the merits. Because of the trial court’s statement, which evinces a marked misunderstanding of the nature of MCR 2.116(C)(8), I would consider the order purporting to grant this motion as void ab initio and of no legal effect.
My review of the record indicates that the court’s action in granting defendant’s motion was little more than a sop meant to appease defendant. While the majority does not mention this, the hearing regarding defendant’s motion for summary disposition below was actually a consolidated hearing in which plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.504(A)(2) was also addressed. The court granted plaintiff’s motion as well as defendant’s, both without *567prejudice. Even a cursory reading of the transcript of this hearing reveals that it was the intent of the court to allow plaintiff to have its case heard in the federal district court, where plaintiff had refiled the action. Only the court’s misapprehension of the import of granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition caused it to make this conciliatory gesture. The final words of the court at the end of the motion hearing were as follows:
I have ruled, and since you want to know, it is without prejudice, so that you will have an opportunity to address the same motion down with the judge in Federal Court....
The case is dismissed on both grounds. You both win.
I am firmly convinced that the court intended to have the matter heard in the federal court and only granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition “not upon the merits” because the court misunderstood the significance of granting the motion.2
Thus, considered in context, the actions of the trial court become more understandable, if not entirely defensible. Because I would consider the order granting defendant’s motion to be both moot and void ab initio, I would affirm, leaving standing the order granting voluntary dismissal, which result was clearly intended by the court.

 Rather than ruling against the defendant, the court granted the defendant’s MCR 2.116(C)(8) motion without prejudice. Under normal circumstances, a litigant would be satisfied to be successful on its motion. Because defendant has not appealed the MCR 2.504(A)(2) dismissal, this appeal is moot. Also, since defendant was victorious on its motion, this appeal raises the issue whether it is an aggrieved party pursuant to the meaning of MCR 7.203(A).

 It is a waste of judicial resources to remand this case to the trial court only to have the trial court reaffirm its prior decision to grant plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.504(A)(2).