SALVATORE CUSUMANO V EARL ROBERT VELGER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SALVATORE CUSUMANO and SUSAN
(LAND) CUSUMANO,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 26, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
EARL ROBERT VELGER, also known as EARL
R. VELGER, and VIRGINIA VELGER,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 248305
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 1999-003925-CK
Official Reported Version
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Jansen and Bandstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal as of right the decision of the trial court denying their request for
mediation sanctions against plaintiffs. We reverse and remand for further appropriate
proceedings. This case is being decided without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
After the parties both rejected a case evaluation, they agreed to arbitrate their dispute.
The arbitration agreement and the court order both provided that mediation sanctions shall apply.
After the arbitrators found for defendants, defendants moved for mediation sanctions, which
were denied by the trial court.
Issues regarding an order to enforce, vacate, or modify an arbitration award are reviewed
de novo. Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 554; 682 NW2d 542 (2004). If
applicable to the circumstances, the imposition of case evaluation sanctions is mandatory, and a
court's decision whether to grant sanctions is a question of law subject to review de novo on
appeal. Campbell v Sullins, 257 Mich App 179, 197; 667 NW2d 887 (2003); Great Lakes Gas
Transmission Ltd Partnership v Markel, 226 Mich App 127, 129; 573 NW2d 61 (1997).
The trial court declined to award sanctions primarily because the arbitration award was
not unanimous, relying on MCR 2.403(O)(7). But it is undisputed that the mediation or case
-1-
evaluation1 award in this case was unanimous. By expressing that the arbitration decision had to
be unanimous to allow for case evaluation sanctions, the trial court inappropriately treated the
arbitration decision as a case evaluation award rather than as a resolution of the case on the
merits. The arbitration agreement contemplates treating the arbitration decision as the "verdict"
because comparing the case evaluation award and the arbitration decision was the only rational
way to apply the test provided by MCR 2.403(O). MCR 2.403 does not require a "verdict" to be
unanimous in order for case evaluation sanctions to apply. Thus, the trial court erred in
effectively imposing such a requirement.
The fact that the arbitration agreement did not address the circumstance of an arbitration
award that was not unanimous with regard to mediation sanctions does not render it ambiguous
because there is no reasonable basis for concluding that a non-unanimous arbitration award
should be treated differently than a unanimous award for the purpose of mediation or case
evaluation sanctions. See Universal Underwriters Ins Co v Kneeland, 464 Mich 491, 496; 628
NW2d 491 (2001) ("A contract is ambiguous if its provisions may reasonably be understood in
different ways."). The arbitration agreement expressly provides that two of the three arbitrators
must agree on an award. An award by two of the arbitrators is a fully valid decision with as
much force as a unanimous award for all purposes, including the application of mediation
sanctions.
The fact that the arbitration decision does not address sanctions or costs simply reflects
the fact that the applicability of mediation or case evaluation sanctions was not part of the matter
submitted to arbitration. The merits of the underlying claims brought by plaintiffs against
defendants were the subject of the arbitration proceeding. There was nothing for the arbitrators
to decide with regard to mediation sanctions because the parties expressly agreed in the
arbitration agreement that "mediation sanctions shall apply."
Plaintiffs assert that MCR 3.602 provides a court with only general discretion to assess
arbitration fees in favor of the prevailing party. The language in MCR 3.602 is simply
inapposite. In seeking mediation sanctions, defendants were not asking for an award of the costs
of arbitration under the trial court's discretion pursuant to MCR 3.602, but rather as part of the
"actual costs" recoverable under MCR 2.403. See MCR 2.403(O)(1). In this regard, MCR
3.602(M) provides that "[t]he arbitrator's compensation is a taxable cost in the action," which
indicates that the costs of arbitration are properly considered as part of the "actual costs"
recoverable as case evaluation sanctions.
The trial court also referred to the provision of the arbitration agreement for each side to
bear the expense of its own arbitrator and to share equally the expenses related to the neutral
arbitrator. However, this is not inconsistent with allowing the prevailing side to recover those
1
MCR 2.403 now uses the terminology "case evaluation" for what was formerly known as
"mediation." It is undisputed and beyond reasonable dispute that the reference to the
applicability of mediation sanctions in the arbitration agreement contemplated what are now
known as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403.
-2-
costs as part of mediation or case evaluation sanctions. The relevant provisions of the arbitration
agreement may be read consistently by recognizing that the language regarding payment of
arbitration expenses dictates how the arbitrators shall be paid as an initial matter, but does not
preclude the prevailing side from recovering its costs in that regard as part of an award of
mediation sanctions under the arbitration agreement.
Finally, we agree with defendants that St George Greek Orthodox Church v Laupmanis
Associates, PC, 204 Mich App 278; 514 NW2d 516 (1994), does not preclude awarding
mediation or case evaluation sanctions in this case. St George involved a dispute related to a
contract that required disputes to be resolved through arbitration proceedings and an eventual
court order submitting the matter to arbitration. At issue on appeal was whether mediation
sanctions were available under MCR 2.403. St George, supra at 281. This Court concluded that
there was no right to mediation sanctions under MCR 2.403 (at least as then in effect2) when a
matter is resolved by arbitration and a court merely enters an order confirming the award. St
George, supra at 282-285. However, unlike in the present case, there is no indication from St
George that there was any contractual agreement between the parties that mediation or case
evaluation sanctions would apply to the arbitrators' award. Accordingly, the St George panel did
not address whether such a contractual provision would be enforceable. Thus, at most, St
George supports that there may not be a direct right to mediation or case evaluation sanctions
under MCR 2.403 where the merits of a case are resolved by arbitration. But, in the present
case, the availability of such sanctions is derived from the arbitration agreement, not directly
from MCR 2.403 itself. Nothing in St George can reasonably be read as precluding such a
contractual agreement to make mediation or case evaluation sanctions available where otherwise
they might not be.
We reverse the trial court's decision regarding mediation sanctions and remand this case
for further appropriate proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
2
While the details of the reasoning in St George on this point are not important to this case, its
analysis focused largely on the use of the phrase "proceeds to trial" in MCR 2.403(O)(1) as in
effect at the pertinent time and that arbitration does not constitute a trial. See St George, supra
at 282-284. In the current version of MCR 2.403(O)(1), the phrase "proceeds to trial" has been
replaced with the phrase "proceeds to verdict." Regardless, there is no need to address, in this
case, whether the holding in St George applies to the present version of MCR 2.403.
-3-
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.