civil action defense in Michigan

2024“The purpose of imposing sanctions for asserting frivolous claims is to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to serve an improper purpose.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co, Inc v Van Sickle, 266 Mich App 400, 405 ; 700 NW2d 432 (2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[M]erely because this Court concludes that a legal position asserted by a party should be rejected does not mean that the party was acting frivolously in advocating its position.” Kitchen, 465 Mich at 663 .

2019Whether a claim or a defense is frivolous within the meaning of MCL 600.2591 depends upon the facts of each case, Kitchen, 465 Mich at 662 , and requires the evaluation of the claims and defenses at the time they were asserted and in the context of the facts of that case.

2018MCL 600.2591 states, (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorney

2018MCL 600.2591 states, (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorney

2018Furthermore, “[t]o determine whether sanctions are appropriate under MCL 600.2591, it is necessary to evaluate the claims or defenses at issue at the time they were made.” In re Costs & Attorney Fees, 250 Mich App 89, 94 ; 645 NW2d 697 (2002).

2018Furthermore, “[t]o determine whether sanctions are appropriate under MCL 600.2591, it is necessary to evaluate the claims or defenses at issue at the time they were made.” In re Costs & Attorney Fees, 250 Mich App 89, 94 ; 645 NW2d 697 (2002).

2018MCR 2.625(A)(2) states: “In an action filed on or after October 1, 1986, if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous, costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591.” MCL 600.2591 provides: -19- (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount

2018MCR 2.625(A)(2) states: “In an action filed on or after October 1, 1986, if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous, costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591.” MCL 600.2591 provides: -19- (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount

2026As explained in FMB-First Mich Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich App 711, 725-726 ; 591 NW2d 676 (1998), MCL 600.2591 predicates an award of attorney fees on the idea that fees are actually incurred by the litigant.

2014MCR 2.625(A)(2) provides that “if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous, costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591.” MCL 600.2591(1) provides that if the court finds that “a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous,” the court “shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney.” The defendant in FMB-First Mich Bank, 232 Mich App 711 , argued on appeal that the trial court’s award of atto

2024“The purpose of imposing sanctions for asserting frivolous claims is to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to serve an improper purpose.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co v Van -10- Sickle, 266 Mich App 400, 405 ; 700 NW2d 432 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“The purpose of imposing sanctions for asserting frivolous claims is to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to serve an improper purpose.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co v Van -10- Sickle, 266 Mich App 400, 405 ; 700 NW2d 432 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Similarly, MCR 2.625 provides that “if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous, costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591.” MCL 600.2591 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and

2019Similarly, MCR 2.625 provides that “if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous, costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591.” (Emphasis added.) MCL 600.2591 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The a

2025Notably, MCL 600.2591 “does not allow for an award of appellate costs and attorney fees.” Fette v Peters Constr Co, 310 Mich App 535, 552 ; 871 NW2d 877 (2015).

2025Notably, MCL 600.2591 “does not allow for an award of appellate costs and attorney fees.” Fette v Peters Constr Co, 310 Mich App 535, 552 ; 871 NW2d 877 (2015).

2023“The frivolous claims provisions impose an affirmative duty on each attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576 ; 669 NW2d 296 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 283-285 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005).

2023“The frivolous claims provisions impose an affirmative duty on each attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576 ; 669 NW2d 296 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 283-285 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005).

2023“The frivolous claims provisions impose an affirmative duty on each attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576 ; 669 NW2d 296 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 283-285 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005).

2023“The frivolous claims provisions impose an affirmative duty on each attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576 ; 669 NW2d 296 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 283-285 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005).

2022It is important to remember with all these rules that “[a] claim is not frivolous merely because the party advancing the claim does not prevail on it.” Grass Lake Improvement Bd v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 316 Mich App 356, 365 ; 891 NW2d 884 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022It is important to remember with all these rules that “[a] claim is not frivolous merely because the party advancing the claim does not prevail on it.” Grass Lake Improvement Bd v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 316 Mich App 356, 365 ; 891 NW2d 884 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Another approach is illustrated in Avery v Demetropoulos, 209 Mich App 500, 501 ; 531 NW2d 720 (1994), in which this Court addressed the plaintiff’s appeal from an order awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant “because plaintiff filed a frivolous claim within the meaning of MCL 600.2591(3).”6 MCL 600.2591(1) provides that “[u]pon motion of any party,” a court in a civil action “shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action” if the court finds that a civil action or defense was “frivolous.” The term “frivolous” is def

2020Another approach is illustrated in Avery v Demetropoulos, 209 Mich App 500, 501 ; 531 NW2d 720 (1994), in which this Court addressed the plaintiff’s appeal from an order awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant “because plaintiff filed a frivolous claim within the meaning of MCL 600.2591(3).”6 MCL 600.2591(1) provides that “[u]pon motion of any party,” a court in a civil action “shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action” if the court finds that a civil action or defense was “frivolous.” The term “frivolous” is def

2019A trial court “may not award attorney fees . . . solely on the basis of what it perceives to be fair or on equitable principles.” Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 166 ; 693 NW2d 825 (2005).

2019A trial court “may not award attorney fees . . . solely on the basis of what it perceives to be fair or on equitable principles.” Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 166 ; 693 NW2d 825 (2005).

2018“To determine whether sanctions are appropriate under MCL 600.2591[], it is necessary to determine whether there was a reasonable basis to believe that the facts supporting the claim were true at the time the lawsuit was filed.” Louya v William Beaumont Hosp, 190 Mich App 151, 162 ; 475 NW2d 434 (1991).

2018“To determine whether sanctions are appropriate under MCL 600.2591[], it is necessary to determine whether there was a reasonable basis to believe that the facts supporting the claim were true at the time the lawsuit was filed.” Louya v William Beaumont Hosp, 190 Mich App 151, 162 ; 475 NW2d 434 (1991).

2018“Sanctions for bringing a frivolous action are warranted where the plaintiff, on the basis of a ruling in another case, has reason to believe that an action against the defendant lacks merit.” Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 423 ; 668 NW2d 199 (2003).

2018“Sanctions for bringing a frivolous action are warranted where the plaintiff, on the basis of a ruling in another case, has reason to believe that an action against the defendant lacks merit.” Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 423 ; 668 NW2d 199 (2003).

2017“This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the relevant court rules to the facts.” Id. -3- MCL 600.2591 provides as follows:1 (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reas

2017“This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the relevant court rules to the facts.” Id. -3- MCL 600.2591 provides as follows:1 (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reas

2002The statute and court rule do not use the phrase “the” to modify the word “defense.” Recently, in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 461-462 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), our Supreme Court analyzed the difference in the use of the terms “a” and “the” in the context of statutory construction: We agree with the following analysis found in the dissent in Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720, 753-754 ; 579 NW2d 347 (1998): “Traditionally in our law, to say nothing of our classrooms, we have recognized the difference between ‘the’ and ‘a.’ ‘The’ is defined as ‘definite article. 1. (used, esp. before

2002The statute and court rule do not use the phrase “the” to modify the word “defense.” Recently, in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 461-462 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), our Supreme Court analyzed the difference in the use of the terms “a” and “the” in the context of statutory construction: We agree with the following analysis found in the dissent in Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720, 753-754 ; 579 NW2d 347 (1998): “Traditionally in our law, to say nothing of our classrooms, we have recognized the difference between ‘the’ and ‘a.’ ‘The’ is defined as ‘definite article. 1. (used, esp. before

2002As noted in Ypsilanti Housing Comm v O’Day, 240 Mich App 621, 624 ; 618 NW2d 18 (2000): The principal goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.

2002As noted in Ypsilanti Housing Comm v O’Day, 240 Mich App 621, 624 ; 618 NW2d 18 (2000): The principal goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.

2002The statute and court rule do not use the phrase “the” to modify the word “defense.” Recently, in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 461-462 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), our Supreme Court analyzed the difference in the use of the terms “a” and “the” in the context of statutory construction: We agree with the following analysis found in the dissent in Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720, 753-754 ; 579 NW2d 347 (1998): “Traditionally in our law, to say nothing of our classrooms, we have recognized the difference between ‘the’ and ‘a.’ ‘The’ is defined as ‘definite article. 1. (used, esp. before

2002The statute and court rule do not use the phrase “the” to modify the word “defense.” Recently, in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 461-462 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), our Supreme Court analyzed the difference in the use of the terms “a” and “the” in the context of statutory construction: We agree with the following analysis found in the dissent in Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720, 753-754 ; 579 NW2d 347 (1998): “Traditionally in our law, to say nothing of our classrooms, we have recognized the difference between ‘the’ and ‘a.’ ‘The’ is defined as ‘definite article. 1. (used, esp. before

2025Plaintiffs argue MCL 600.2591 does not allow for attorney fees to be awarded on appeal, and cites this Court’s holdings in Fette v Peters Constr Co, 310 Mich App 535, 551-552 ; 871 NW2d 877 (2015), and Edge v Edge, 299 Mich App 121, 134 ; 829 NW2d 276 (2012), in support. -3- Notably, the Township failed to cite under what authority they were moving for attorney fees, opting to “adopt” MCC’s arguments at the hearing.4 MCC argued plaintiffs’ reliance on these cases is mistaken because the underlying facts are distinguishable, and “[n]either case addresses the authority of the [circuit court] to

2025Plaintiffs argue MCL 600.2591 does not allow for attorney fees to be awarded on appeal, and cites this Court’s holdings in Fette v Peters Constr Co, 310 Mich App 535, 551-552 ; 871 NW2d 877 (2015), and Edge v Edge, 299 Mich App 121, 134 ; 829 NW2d 276 (2012), in support. -3- Notably, the Township failed to cite under what authority they were moving for attorney fees, opting to “adopt” MCC’s arguments at the hearing.4 MCC argued plaintiffs’ reliance on these cases is mistaken because the underlying facts are distinguishable, and “[n]either case addresses the authority of the [circuit court] to

2022In New Covert Generating Co, 334 Mich App at 91, this Court explained: “An attorney has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” LaRose Market, Inc v Sylvan Ctr, Inc, 209 Mich App 201, 210 ; 530 NW2d 505 (1995).

2022In New Covert Generating Co, 334 Mich App at 91, this Court explained: “An attorney has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal viability of a pleading before it is signed.” LaRose Market, Inc v Sylvan Ctr, Inc, 209 Mich App 201, 210 ; 530 NW2d 505 (1995).

2019Crucial to our resolution of this issue on appeal is the fact that Aerotek’s motion below was grounded solely on the definition of frivolousness contained in MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii), providing that the “party’s legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit.” An action “is devoid of arguable legal merit if it is not sufficiently grounded in law or fact, such as when it violates basic, longstanding, and unmistakably evident precedent.” Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v Titan Ins Co, 314 Mich App 577, 585 ; 887 NW2d 205 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Crucial to our resolution of this issue on appeal is the fact that Aerotek’s motion below was grounded solely on the definition of frivolousness contained in MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii), providing that the “party’s legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit.” An action “is devoid of arguable legal merit if it is not sufficiently grounded in law or fact, such as when it violates basic, longstanding, and unmistakably evident precedent.” Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v Titan Ins Co, 314 Mich App 577, 585 ; 887 NW2d 205 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Smitter v Thornapple Twp, 494 Mich 121, 136 ; 833 NW2d 875 (2013).

2019Smitter v Thornapple Twp, 494 Mich 121, 136 ; 833 NW2d 875 (2013).

2017This statute provides: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorn

2017This statute provides: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorn

2017Because the matter is resolved by the choice-of-law question, we decline to address these alternative theories. 33 Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 526 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). 34 Id. 35 In re Attorney Fees & Costs, 233 Mich App 694, 701 ; 593 NW2d 589 (1999). 36 Id. 37 In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253, 271 ; 779 NW2d 286 (2009). -14- (a) “Frivolous” means that at least 1 of the following conditions is met: (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that

2017Because the matter is resolved by the choice-of-law question, we decline to address these alternative theories. 33 Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 526 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). 34 Id. 35 In re Attorney Fees & Costs, 233 Mich App 694, 701 ; 593 NW2d 589 (1999). 36 Id. 37 In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253, 271 ; 779 NW2d 286 (2009). -14- (a) “Frivolous” means that at least 1 of the following conditions is met: (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that

2017This statute provides: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorn

2017This statute provides: (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorn

2017Because the matter is resolved by the choice-of-law question, we decline to address these alternative theories. 33 Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 526 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). 34 Id. 35 In re Attorney Fees & Costs, 233 Mich App 694, 701 ; 593 NW2d 589 (1999). 36 Id. 37 In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253, 271 ; 779 NW2d 286 (2009). -14- (a) “Frivolous” means that at least 1 of the following conditions is met: (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that

2017Because the matter is resolved by the choice-of-law question, we decline to address these alternative theories. 33 Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519, 526 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). 34 Id. 35 In re Attorney Fees & Costs, 233 Mich App 694, 701 ; 593 NW2d 589 (1999). 36 Id. 37 In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253, 271 ; 779 NW2d 286 (2009). -14- (a) “Frivolous” means that at least 1 of the following conditions is met: (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that