Opinion
368708
04-15-2024
ESTATE OF GARRY R SILLIVENT v. VHS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF MICHIGAN
LC No. 23-004114-NH
Mark T. Boonstra Presiding Judge Jane E. Markey Stephen L. Borrello Judges.
ORDER
Mark T. Boonstra Presiding Judge.
The motion to file a late answer is GRANTED and the answer filed with the motion is accepted.
The application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate standing. Although the order appealed was captioned as one granting a motion for partial summary disposition, the body of the order instead stated: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Dr. Wright's motion for summary disposition . . . is dismissed for the reasons stated on the record." (Emphasis added.) Admittedly, that ruling is fundamentally inconsistent with the trial court's earlier oral remarks at the related motion hearing, and we are cognizant that, in some circumstances, a trial court's "oral ruling has the same force and effect as a written order, as when, for example, an oral ruling clearly communicates the finality of the court's pronouncement." Arbor Farms, LLC v GeoStar Corp, 305 Mich.App. 374, 388; 853 N.W.2d 421 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). But when, as here, a trial court's oral statements about an intended ruling are inconsistent with its later written order, the most prudent course is to deem the written order to be the court's actual ruling. See generally MCR 2.602(A)(1); People v Vincent, 455 Mich. 110, 125; 565 N.W.2d 629 (1997); Tiedman v Tiedman, 400 Mich. 571, 576; 255 N.W.2d 632 (1977); In re KMN, 309 Mich.App. 274, 287; 870 N.W.2d 75 (2015). And that is particularly true because, given the current interlocutory stance of this matter, the trial court remains free to correct its written order if that order does not accurately reflect the court's intended ruling. See MCR 2.612(A)(1). Because the trial court's written order was actually favorable to plaintiff, dismissing a motion seeking partial summary disposition against her, we are forced to conclude that she lacks standing to appeal it. See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich. 637, 643; 753 N.W.2d 48 (2008); Federated Ins Co v Oakland Co Rd Comm, 475 Mich. 286, 288, 291-292 &n 2; 715 N.W.2d 846 (2006).