DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION V D & T CONSTRUCTION CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
UNPUBLISHED
January 19, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 201353
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 91-001704 CC
D & T CONSTRUCTION,
Defendant-Appellee.
AFTER REMAND
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and O’Connell and Whitbeck, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant attorney’s fees in the
amount of $390,169.97 in this condemnation case. We affirm.
In In re Condemnation of Private Property for Highway Purposes (Dep’t of
Transportation v D & T Construction Co), 209 Mich App 336; 530 NW2d 183 (1995), this Court
remanded this case the trial court for consideration of the eight factors listed in MRPC 1.5(a) in
determining the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees award granted under § 16 of the Uniform
Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL 213.51 et seq.; MSA 8.265(1) et seq. In response, the trial
court analyzed the eight factors and granted defendant the same generous award of attorney’s fees as it
had in the earlier proceeding. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in awarding defendant
the maximum amount of attorney’s fees authorized by the statute. We disagree.
We are neither entitled nor permitted to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court
concerning the latter’s award of attorney’s fees; our review is confined to determining whether the trial
court’s award was so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion. In re Condemnation of
Private Property for Highway Purposes (Dep’t of Transportation v Curis), 221 Mich App 136,
139-140; 561 NW2d 459 (1997). “An abuse of discretion occurs when an unprejudiced person,
considering the facts upon which the trial court acted, would say that there was no justification or excuse
for the trial court’s ruling.” Dep’t of Transportation v Randolph, 228 Mich App 91, 94; 576 NW2d
719 (1998). Stated otherwise, “an abuse of discretion will be found when the decision is ‘so palpably
-1
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 of passion or bias.’”
Dacon v Transue, 441 Mich 315, 329; 490 NW2d 369 (1992), quoting Spalding v Spalding, 355
Mich 382, 384-385; 94 NW2d 810 (1959).
Our review of the record in this case does not leave us with a clear sense that the trial court’s
award of attorney’s fees was wholly without justification, or constituted a perversity of will or defiance
of judgment.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, jr.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
-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.
