raise-or-waive rule in Michigan

2025“In civil cases, Michigan follows ‘the raise or waive rule of appellate review.’ ” Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 289; 14 NW3d 472 (2023), quoting Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 387 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008).

2025“In civil cases, Michigan follows ‘the raise or waive rule of appellate review.’ ” Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 289; 14 NW3d 472 (2023), quoting Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 387 ; 751 NW2d 431 (2008).

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2024This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain-error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise- or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 192-194 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying the so-

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2024This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain-error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise- or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 192-194 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying the so-

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2024This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain-error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise- or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 192-194 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying the so-

2024See, e.g., Compagner v Burch, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359699); slip op at 12 & n 22 (exercising an exception to the so-called raise-or-waive rule to address an unpreserved argument in a civil case first raised in a motion for reconsideration and also addressing a constitutional issue not raised by the parties); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006) (exercising an exception to the so-called raise- or-waive rule to address an unpreserved issue involving the implied warranty of habitability); In re Conservatorship of Murray

2024See, e.g., Compagner v Burch, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359699); slip op at 12 & n 22 (exercising an exception to the so-called raise-or-waive rule to address an unpreserved argument in a civil case first raised in a motion for reconsideration and also addressing a constitutional issue not raised by the parties); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006) (exercising an exception to the so-called raise- or-waive rule to address an unpreserved issue involving the implied warranty of habitability); In re Conservatorship of Murray

2022In other cases, however, this Court has, without explanation, deviated from the raise-or- waive rule set forth by our Supreme Court in Napier and Walters to address unpreserved errors in civil cases and instead applied the plain-error rule articulated by our Supreme Court in Carines to address unpreserved errors in criminal cases.3 The majority cites one such case: Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014).

2022In other cases, however, this Court has, without explanation, deviated from the raise-or- waive rule set forth by our Supreme Court in Napier and Walters to address unpreserved errors in civil cases and instead applied the plain-error rule articulated by our Supreme Court in Carines to address unpreserved errors in criminal cases.3 The majority cites one such case: Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014).

2026Upon examining the trial court’s questioning through the “heavy presumption of judicial impartiality,” see Cain v Mich Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 497 ; 548 NW2d 210 (1996), and also noting the trial court gave a curative instruction that “nothing I say is meant to reflect my opinions about the facts of this case,” see Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat Ins Co, 302 Mich App 7, 25 ; 837 NW2d 686 (2013) (noting the import of curative instructions), the trial court’s probing questioning of Banga that brought out some inconsistencies in his testimony did not rise to the level of a manifest

2026Although Michigan normally follows the raise-or-waive rule of appellate review in noncriminal cases, “because a parent’s right to custody of his or her child is an important liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution, this Court will . . . review unpreserved errors in termination proceedings for plain error.” Bailey v Schaaf (On Remand), 304 Mich App 324 , 345 n 3; 852 NW2d 180 (2014), vacated in part on other grounds 497 Mich 927 (2014).

2026Although Michigan normally follows the raise-or-waive rule of appellate review in noncriminal cases, “because a parent’s right to custody of his or her child is an important liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution, this Court will . . . review unpreserved errors in termination proceedings for plain error.” Bailey v Schaaf (On Remand), 304 Mich App 324 , 345 n 3; 852 NW2d 180 (2014), vacated in part on other grounds 497 Mich 927 (2014).

2026See Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 283-294; 14 NW3d 472 (2023) (discussing the raise-or-waive rule); Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026See Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 283-294; 14 NW3d 472 (2023) (discussing the raise-or-waive rule); Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (“It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026Upon examining the trial court’s questioning through the “heavy presumption of judicial impartiality,” see Cain v Mich Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 497 ; 548 NW2d 210 (1996), and also noting the trial court gave a curative instruction that “nothing I say is meant to reflect my opinions about the facts of this case,” see Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat Ins Co, 302 Mich App 7, 25 ; 837 NW2d 686 (2013) (noting the import of curative instructions), the trial court’s probing questioning of Banga that brought out some inconsistencies in his testimony did not rise to the level of a manifest

2026Upon examining the trial court’s questioning through the “heavy presumption of judicial impartiality,” see Cain v Mich Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 497 ; 548 NW2d 210 (1996), and also noting the trial court gave a curative instruction that “nothing I say is meant to reflect my opinions about the facts of this case,” see Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat Ins Co, 302 Mich App 7, 25 ; 837 NW2d 686 (2013) (noting the import of curative instructions), the trial court’s probing questioning of Banga that brought out some inconsistencies in his testimony did not rise to the level of a manifest

2025Although Henry and Berden have standing to bring their arguments before this Court as aggrieved parties, see Mathew R Abel, PC v Grossman Investments Co, 302 Mich App 232, 240 ; 838 NW2d 204 (2013), their arguments are not preserved for appellate purposes and, therefore, are subject to the raise or waive rule, see Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 289; ___ NW3d ___ (2023).

2025Although Henry and Berden have standing to bring their arguments before this Court as aggrieved parties, see Mathew R Abel, PC v Grossman Investments Co, 302 Mich App 232, 240 ; 838 NW2d 204 (2013), their arguments are not preserved for appellate purposes and, therefore, are subject to the raise or waive rule, see Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280 , 289; ___ NW3d ___ (2023).

2025English v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich, 263 Mich App 449, 458 ; 688 NW2d 523 (2004) (deeming due-process claim abandoned based on lack of analysis).

2025English v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich, 263 Mich App 449, 458 ; 688 NW2d 523 (2004) (deeming due-process claim abandoned based on lack of analysis).

2025“If a litigant does not raise an issue in the trial court, this Court has no obligation to consider the issue.” Id. at ___; slip op at 3.

2023“If a litigant does not raise an issue in the trial court, this Court has no obligation to consider the issue.” Id. at ___; slip op at 3.

2023Id. at ___; slip op at 3.

2023In this case, there is no reason to overlook the preservation requirement and we conclude that plaintiff waived this issue.11 10 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 11 Imprisonment does not constitute a personal disability that will extend the limitations period.

2023In this case, there is no reason to overlook the preservation requirement and we conclude that plaintiff waived this issue.11 10 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 11 Imprisonment does not constitute a personal disability that will extend the limitations period.

2022Although “this Court can overlook the preservation issue when failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, if consideration is necessary for a proper determination of the case, or if the issue involves a question of law and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented,” Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 521 ; 823 NW2d 153 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted), none of these exceptions are present here.

2022Although “this Court can overlook the preservation issue when failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, if consideration is necessary for a proper determination of the case, or if the issue involves a question of law and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented,” Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 521 ; 823 NW2d 153 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted), none of these exceptions are present here.

2022I recognize that there is something of a teething period before a standard set down by our Supreme Court establishes deep enough roots in our jurisprudence to be applied consistently and 3 See, e.g., Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000) (citing Carines and MRE 103); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015) (citing Carines and Kern); Total Armored Car Service, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 325 Mich App 403, 412 ; 926 NW2d 276 (2018) (citing Carines and Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014)).

2022I recognize that there is something of a teething period before a standard set down by our Supreme Court establishes deep enough roots in our jurisprudence to be applied consistently and 3 See, e.g., Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000) (citing Carines and MRE 103); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015) (citing Carines and Kern); Total Armored Car Service, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 325 Mich App 403, 412 ; 926 NW2d 276 (2018) (citing Carines and Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014)).

2022It is a “fundamental principal that only [our Supreme Court] has the authority to overrule one of its prior decisions.” Paige v City of Sterling Hts, 476 Mich 495, 524 ; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).

2022It is a “fundamental principal that only [our Supreme Court] has the authority to overrule one of its prior decisions.” Paige v City of Sterling Hts, 476 Mich 495, 524 ; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).

1988See, e.g., Payne v Arkansas, 356 US 560 ; 78 S Ct 844 ; 2 L Ed 2d 975 (1958); Haynes v Washington, 373 US 503 ; 83 S Ct 1336 ; 10 L Ed 2d 513 (1963).

1988See, e.g., Payne v Arkansas, 356 US 560 ; 78 S Ct 844 ; 2 L Ed 2d 975 (1958); Haynes v Washington, 373 US 503 ; 83 S Ct 1336 ; 10 L Ed 2d 513 (1963).

1988The rule of Jackson v Denno, supra , and the exception to the raise-or-waive rule is directed to those situations in which a confession might be involuntary in the traditional sense that that term was historically used in Fifth Amendment *272 jurisprudence.

1988The rule of Jackson v Denno, supra, and the exception to the raise-or-waive rule is directed to those situations in which a confession might be involuntary in the traditional sense that that term was historically used in Fifth Amend ment jurisprudence.