JOSEPH W STROUP V SANDY K DERBY

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH W. STROUP and SALLY BATEMAN STROUP, UNPUBLISHED Plaintiff, v No. 195937 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. A 95-2820 PD SANDY K. DERBY, Defendant-Appellee, and JENNIFER STROUP, Defendant, and WALSH & WALSH, PC and RICHARD C. WALSH, Appellants. Before: Markey, P.J., and Kelly and Whitbeck, JJ. KELLY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the majority opinion to vacate the award of sanctions, but dissent as to the decision to remand. No remand was requested, no cross-appeal was filed, no creative extension of our powers of review is necessary. The analogy drawn by the per curiam footnote 4 seems to limp as the pedagogues say. A remand for a new trial in a criminal case is hortatory. We remand for further proceedings left mainly to the prosecutor. Anything appropriate can happen. We do not ordinarily scratch out an -1­ elaborate scenario for the edification of the lower court where counsel for the parties have not identified such post-appellate proceedings as authorized and appropriate. I would reverse. /s/ Michael J. Kelly -2­