 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burks v. Jordan11/1/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant, Kevin Jordan, appeals as of right the trial court's final judgment and order which obligated him to pay plaintiff mediation sanctions in the amount of $23,320. We reverse and remand.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Burks filed a complaint against defendants, including Jordan, for injuries he suffered during an altercation at a social club. A mediation panel evaluated Burks' case as follows: $1,000 against Jordan, $0 against Jacqueline Dorsey, $500 against Anita Banks, $500 against David Dorsey, $500 against Ronald Dorsey, and $500 against Steven Banks, for a total of $3,000. Plaintiff rejected the mediation evaluation and Jordan was the only defendant to reject the mediation evaluation.
Following the presentation of the evidence at trial, the trial court instructed the jury that, if the jury found defendants liable, it should apportion damages to each defendant. However, unfortunately, the trial court further instructed the jury, erroneously, that, if it could not attribute a percentage of fault to each defendant, it should simply render a lump sum award against all of the liable defendants. The jury returned a joint and several verdict of $10,000 against Jordan, Anita Banks, Ronald Dorsey, and Steven Banks.
Burks moved for mediation sanctions against Jordan in the amount of $29,970. The trial court ruled that the verdict was more favorable to plaintiff because the $10,000 verdict was payable by any one of the four defendants. Accordingly, after striking certain fees attributed to work performed by an unlicensed law school graduate, the trial court entered a final judgment that included $23,320 in mediation sanctions against Jordan.
II. Analysis
Jordan argues that the trial court erred by awarding mediation sanctions against him because Burks cannot show that the jury verdict was more favorable to him than the mediation evaluation where the jury verdict was joint and several and not apportioned among the parties.
Though both parties assert that this Court reviews a decision to award mediation sanctions for an abuse of discretion, the decision to award mediation sanctions is an issue of law, which we review de novo. See Dessart v Burak, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2002); Cheron, Inc v Don Jones, Inc, 244 Mich App 212, 218; 625 NW2d 93 (2000); Elia v Hazen, 242 Mich App 374, 376-377; 619 NW2d 1 (2000). This standard of review is also appropriate because the issue involves the interpretation of a court rule, which we also review de novo. Marketos v American Employers Ins Co, 465 Mich 407, 413; 633 NW2d 371 (2001).
MCR 2.403(O) governs the liability of a party who rejects a mediation evaluation to pay the opposing party's costs. MCR2.403(O)(1), as it existed at the time of these proceedings, provided:
If a party has rejected an evaluation and the action proceeds to verdict, that party must pay the opposing party's actual costs unless the verdict is more favorable to the rejecting party than the mediation evaluation. However, if the opposing party has also rejected the evaluation, a party is entitled to costs only if the verdict is more favorable to that party than the mediation evaluation.
A verdict is considered "more favorable" to a plaintiff if it is more than ten percent above the mediation evaluation. MCR 2.403(O)(3). In cases involving multiple parties, if the verdict is based on the parties' joint and several liability, "the plaintiff may not recover costs unless the verdict is more favorable to the plaintiff than the total mediation evaluation as to those defendants." MCR 2.403(O)(4)(b). Burks argues that, because the aggregate verd
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|