WILLIAM Q TINGLEY III V WARD A KORTZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM Q. TINGLEY, III,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 24, 2004
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
WARD A. KORTZ, 900 MONROE, L.L.C., 940
MONROE, L.L.C., CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,
DICKINSON WRIGHT, P.L.L.C., DYKEMA
EXCAVATORS, INC., FIFTH THIRD
BANCORP, PIONEER, INC., and SUPERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.,
No. 245974
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 02-009503-CE
Official Reported Version
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Borrello, JJ.
METER, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because plaintiff (1) failed to preserve for appeal the issue on which
the majority bases its ruling and (2) acquiesced in having the chief judge of the circuit court
review the merits of the instant lawsuit. I would affirm.
The majority reverses the trial court's ruling on the basis of an issue not raised by any
party below. As noted in Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich
211, 234 n 23; 507 NW2d 422 (1993), issues raised for the first time on appeal generally are not
subject to review absent "exigent circumstances." No exigent circumstances are present here.
Moreover, not only was the issue deemed dispositive by the majority not raised below, it also
was not raised on appeal. Therefore, "this case presents a much stronger case than Booth for
declining to address the . . . issue, because in Booth, a party had at least raised the issue on
appeal." Burns v Detroit (On Remand), 253 Mich App 608, 615; 660 NW2d 85 (2002), modified
468 Mich 881 (2003).
Additionally, plaintiff acquiesced in the procedure deemed faulty by the majority.
Indeed, plaintiff filed a "Request for Determination" with the chief judge, in which he
specifically asked the chief judge to determine whether the instant lawsuit was frivolous. The
chief judge simply complied with this request, stating, inter alia, "It's my opinion that this is
essentially the same lawsuit that you had in front of Judge Soet and should not have been
accepted by our court. So I will dismiss this case as having been improperly filed, and I will
-1-
award sanctions to the defendants[.]" To rule for plaintiff on appeal, i.e., to reverse the trial
court's judgment in this case, would be allowing plaintiff to "harbor error as an appellate
parachute," an action disallowed by this Court. See Dresselhouse v Chrysler Corp, 177 Mich
App 470, 477; 442 NW2d 705 (1989) ("[a] party is not allowed to assign as error on appeal
something which his or her own counsel deemed proper at trial since to do so would permit the
party to harbor error as an appellate parachute").
Further, I find no merit to the issues plaintiff actually does raise in his appellate brief.
I would affirm.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.