FRANK WILLIAMS V JOSEPH RITTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
FRANK WILLIAMS,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 223192
Cass Circuit Court
LC No. 93-000354-CZ
JOSEPH RITTER and STEVEN BARIL,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Doctoroff and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendants appeal as of right the order of the trial court granting plaintiff’s motion for
dismissal while denying defendants’ request for costs and attorney fees. We remand this case for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendants’
request for costs and attorney fees as a condition to plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the case.
We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a defendant’s request for costs and attorney
fees for an abuse of discretion. McKelvie v Mount Clemens, 193 Mich App 81, 84; 483 NW2d
442 (1992). An abuse of discretion occurs where the result is “so palpably and grossly violative
of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise
of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather the exercise of passion or
bias.” Alken-Ziegler v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 227; 600 NW2d 638 (1999),
quoting Marrs v Bd of Medicine, 422 Mich 688, 694; 375 NW2d 321 (1985).
In this case, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the case under MCR 2.504(A)(2),
which states:
Except as provided in subrule (A)(1), an action may not be dismissed at
the plaintiff’s request except by order of the court on terms and conditions the
court deems proper. [Emphasis added.]
Under this court rule, a trial court may impose costs and attorney fees as a condition of a
voluntary dismissal. McKelvie, supra at 84. See also Davis v Koch, 118 Mich App 529, 534;
325 NW2d 482 (1982).
-1-
The trial court denied defendants’ request for costs and attorney fees, but did not explain
its reasoning. We find no Michigan cases requiring a trial court to state its reasoning for denying
costs and attorney fees under MCR 2.504. However, we have required a trial court to justify its
denial of costs under MCR 2.625.1 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v Eaton Rapids
Community Hosp, 221 Mich App 301, 308; 561 NW2d 488 (1997). Further, given the complete
absence of a record indicating the trial court’s findings and conclusions on this matter, we are
unable to determine whether the court’s decision evidences perversity of will, defiance of
judgment, or exercise of passion or bias. Alken-Ziegler, supra at 227. Therefore, we remand this
case to the trial court for an explanation concerning its denial of defendants’ motion for costs and
attorney fees.
Remanded. We retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
MCR 2.625 requires the trial court to explain the denial of costs in writing. MCR 2.504
contains no such requirement.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
