JAGUAR TRADING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V WILFORD JOHN PRESLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAGUAR TRADING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
FOR PUBLICATION
August 3, 2010
9:00 a.m.
No. 290972
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 08-001071-CK
WILFORD JOHN PRESLER,
Defendant,
and
DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and BANDSTRA and WHITBECK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Douglas Cunningham1 appeals as of right the trial court’s order denying his
motion for summary disposition, granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff pursuant to
MCR 2.116(I)(2), and confirming an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff. We reverse and
remand.
The facts of the dispute in the underlying arbitration matter are not at issue in this appeal.
The sole issue is whether plaintiff, as a party seeking confirmation of an arbitration award under
MCR 3.602(I) and the Michigan Arbitration Act (MAA), MCL 600.5001 et seq., was required to
file a complaint in the circuit court in order to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. We conclude
that, because no action was pending between the parties, plaintiff was required to file a
complaint to initiate a civil action under the MAA. See MCR 3.602. We further conclude,
however, that, pursuant to MCR 3.602(I), plaintiff timely filed the arbitration award with the
clerk of the court.
1
Wilford John Presler was named as a defendant below, but he did not appear and is not a party
to this appeal. The term “defendant” as used in this opinion refers solely to defendant Douglas
Cunningham.
-1-
Plaintiff and defendant were parties to an agreement that provided for binding arbitration
of any controversy or claim arising from the agreement. A dispute arose between the parties,
and, on August 13, 2007, an arbitration award was issued, awarding plaintiff $18,456.94, plus
fees and costs. On August 12, 2008, plaintiff filed State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO)
form “MC 284,” titled “Binding Arbitration Award,” in the trial court. On the form, plaintiff
checked boxes indicating that the basis for binding arbitration was statutory based on contract;
that the nature of the claim arbitrated was commercial; and that the total amount of the award
was $25,219.44. Plaintiff attached several documents to the SCAO form, including the original
arbitration award and exhibits submitted in the arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff did not file a
complaint or any other pleadings.
Defendant, rather than filing an answer, sought summary disposition on the ground that
no complaint had been filed. Defendant noted that MCR 3.602, which governs statutory
arbitration under the MAA, provides in subsection (B)(1) that a party seeking relief under the
rule must first file a complaint as in other civil actions. Defendant further argued that because
plaintiff’s filing was made one day before the expiration of the one-year limitation period set
forth in MCR 3.602(I) for the filing of a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award,
any further proceedings were barred.
Plaintiff’s attorney filed an affidavit explaining that he believed, based on his reading of
the MAA and MCR 3.602 and his research concerning SCAO form MC 284, that he had
followed the appropriate procedure for seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. Plaintiff
argued that under MCR 3.602(I), a party seeking confirmation of an arbitration award need only
“file” the award with the clerk of the appropriate court within one year after the award is
rendered, and that the language in MCR 3.602(B)(1) relied on by defendant is not applicable to
confirmation requests under subsection (I). The trial court denied defendant’s motion and
instead granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff under MCR 2.116(I)(2), holding that
MCR 3.602(I) allows a party seeking confirmation of an arbitration award to initiate a
proceeding by filing the award with the clerk of the court.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 688; 593 NW2d 215 (1999). A court may grant
summary disposition to the opposing party under MCR 2.116(I)(2) if it determines that the
opposing party, rather than the moving party, is entitled to judgment. Washburn v Michailoff,
240 Mich App 669, 672; 613 NW2d 405 (2000). The trial court in this case held that plaintiff
was entitled to judgment on the basis that no genuine issue of fact remained. Summary
disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue concerning any
material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lind v Battle Creek, 470
Mich 230, 238; 681 NW2d 334 (2004).
The interpretation and application of a court rule involves a question of law that this
Court reviews de novo. Associated Builders & Contractors v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs
Dir, 472 Mich 117, 123-124; 693 NW2d 374 (2005); Greater Bethesda Healing Springs Ministry
v Evangel Builders & Const, 282 Mich App 410, 412; 766 NW2d 874 (2009). The rules
governing the construction of statutes apply to the interpretation of court rules. Rafferty v
Markovitz, 461 Mich 265, 270; 602 NW2d 367 (1999); Greater Bethesda, 282 Mich App at 412.
Clear and unambiguous language in a court rule must be accorded its plain meaning and
-2-
enforced as written. Id.; Fleet Business Credit, LLC v Krapohl Ford Lincoln Mercury Co, 274
Mich App 584, 591; 735 NW2d 644 (2007).
Where an arbitration agreement provides that judgment may be entered on the arbitration
award, as did the parties’ agreement in this case, it falls within the definition of statutory
arbitration and is governed by the MAA. MCL 600.5001(2); Wold Architects & Engineers v
Strat, 474 Mich 223, 225, 229; 713 NW2d 750 (2006). MCR 3.602 governs judicial review and
enforcement of statutory arbitration agreements. MCR 3.602(A); MCL 600.5021; Brucker v
McKinlay Transp, Inc, 454 Mich 8, 16-17; 557 NW2d 536 (1997).
Plaintiff contends that the plain and unambiguous language of MCR 3.602(I) makes clear
that a party seeking confirmation of an arbitration award need not file a complaint to invoke
circuit-court jurisdiction. Subsection (I) provides:
Award; Confirmation by Court. An arbitration award filed with the clerk of the
court designated in the agreement or statute within one year after the award was
rendered may be confirmed by the court, unless it is vacated, corrected, or
modified, or a decision is postponed, as provided in this rule. [Emphasis
supplied.]
On the basis of the emphasized language, plaintiff maintains that a proceeding to confirm an
arbitration award is initiated simply by filing the arbitration award with the clerk of the court.
We disagree.
To be effective, a filed award must be “confirmed” by the court. And this confirmation
necessarily must result in an order of confirmation by the court. And, as defendant notes, MCR
3.602(B)(1) requires a party seeking any order under Rule 3.602 to first file a complaint if no
action is pending. As amended in 2007, subsection (B)(1) provides:
(B) Proceedings to Compel or to Stay Arbitration.
(1) A request for an order to compel or to stay arbitration or for another order
under this rule must be by motion, which shall be heard in the manner and on the
notice provided by these rules for motions. If there is not a pending action
between the parties, the party seeking the requested relief must first file a
complaint as in other civil actions.2 [Emphasis supplied.]
The emphasized language is consistent with the overall content of MCR 3.602, which
makes clear that any request for circuit court relief in an arbitration matter takes place within the
context of a “civil action” and is therefore subject to all of the procedural requirements that apply
to such an action.3 As noted above, MCR 3.602(B)(1), (J)(1) and (K)(1) provide for the filing of
2
As plaintiff notes, in 2007 the emphasized language in subrule (B)(1) was also added to the
subrules governing vacation and modification of arbitration awards, MCR 3.602(J) and (K).
3
See also 1985 Staff Comment to MCR 3.602:
Subrule(B)(1) requires that a request to invoke court jurisdiction in an arbitration
(continued…)
-3-
complaints and motions in proceedings involving arbitration matters “as in other civil actions.”
Similarly, subrule (M) provides for the taxing of costs “as in civil actions,” and subrule (N)
provides for the taking of appeals “as from orders or judgments in other civil actions.”
Pursuant to MCR 2.101(A), “[t]here is one form of action known as a ‘civil action,’” and,
under MCR 2.101(B), “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with a court.”
Furthermore, § 1901 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), in which the MAA is located,
provides that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” MCL
600.1901. There is no authority within the MAA for the commencement of a confirmation
proceeding other than by the filing of a complaint as directed in § 1901.4 Indeed, our Supreme
Court has noted that “[a]fter an arbitration award is rendered, the successful party has one year to
commence a civil action requesting that the court confirm the award and reduce it to judgment.”
Gordon Sel-Way Inc v Spence Bros, Inc, 438 Mich 488, 501-502; 475 NW2d 704 (1991)
(emphasis supplied).5 As the Court further explained:
In Michigan, “civil action” is broadly defined as an action “commenced by filing
a complaint with a court.” MCR 2.101(B), MCL 600.1901. . . . The procedure to
obtain a money judgment on an arbitration award is governed by the rules
applicable to civil actions and commences with the filing of a complaint with a
court. MCR 3.602. [Id. at 509 (emphasis supplied).]6
Plaintiff failed to properly initiate a civil action by filing a complaint as required by both
MCL 600.1901 and MCR 2.101(B). Indeed, plaintiff has failed to file any pleading or make any
official request with the circuit court.7 Having failed to invoke circuit-court jurisdiction under
(…continued)
matter is to be made by filing a civil action, unless the matter arises in a pending action,
in which case a motion may be used. [Emphasis supplied.]
4
See also 5 Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (5th ed.), § 3602.8, pp 107-108:
A party seeking confirmation of an award [under MCR 3.602(I)] must file
the award with the clerk of the court designated in the agreement within one year
after the award was rendered. In a pending action, the filing of the award is
coupled with the filing of a motion seeking its confirmation. If no action is then
pending, the party seeking confirmation must file a complaint seeking that relief.
The award is attached to and filed with the complaint. Service of the pleadings is
made under MCR 2.105. MCR 2116 is available for summary disposition of the
action. [Emphasis supplied; footnoted citations omitted.]
5
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Gordon Sel-Way was released prior to the most recent 2007
amendment to the court rule. However, the rationale applied to the rule then still applies to the
rule as written today.
6
The Gordon Sel-Way Court concluded that MCL 600.6013 governs the interest on arbitration
awards “from the date a complaint is filed requesting confirmation of an award and continues
until the date judgment rendered on the award is satisfied.” 438 Mich at 490.
7
SCAO form MC 284 does not contain any request for confirmation of an existing arbitration
award; rather, the form, which is captioned “Binding Arbitration Award,” is simply a document
(continued…)
-4-
the MAA by properly initiating a civil action through the filing of a complaint, plaintiff was
entitled to neither confirmation of the arbitration award nor summary disposition.
Defendant additionally argues that, because the one-year limitation period of MCR
3.602(I) has expired, further proceedings are barred, citing Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving
Indus, Inc, 196 Mich App 71, 73; 492 NW2d 463 (1992). We disagree. In Huntington Woods,
the proponent of the arbitration award sought its confirmation by properly filing a complaint, but
it did not do so within the one-year period allowed by MCR 3.602(I). Id. at 73-74. Thus,
apparently no action whatsoever was taken seeking confirmation of the award within the time
limit of that Rule. In contrast, plaintiff here filed the arbitration award with the clerk of the
lower court within one year after the award was rendered, thus strictly complying with the time
limitation and the clear language of the Rule. Accordingly, MCR 3.602(I) does not itself
prohibit plaintiff from filing a complaint with the lower court for confirmation of the timely filed
award.8
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
(…continued)
that may be completed by an arbitrator for use as the arbitration award itself.
8
We have been presented with no argument apart from the Rule by which a complaint might be
otherwise time-barred. Upon remand, the lower court may consider any such argument if it is
advanced.
-5-
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.
