Michigan Appellate Court Reversed Costs Ruling
The court ordered the payment of litigation costs in a real estate dispute after reversing a lower court decision.
Updated on Oct. 7, 2026 in Residential
Live Poll
Do you believe court rules requiring payment of opponent legal costs promote fairness in local disputes?
An appellate court in Michigan has reversed a trial court's denial of litigation costs in a real estate dispute involving Brandon and Pam McEwen. The court affirmed a separate denial regarding attorney fees while ordering the payment of costs.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies the application of the interest of justice exception under court rules regarding offers of judgment. It ensures that successful offerors can recover specific litigation expenses when the final verdict is more favorable than a rejected offer.
The awarded costs consist of $1,315.15 in litigation expenses and $750.00 in expert fees. These costs were triggered after the Sheltons failed to respond to an offer of judgment within the required 21-day period.
The players
Brandon McEwen
He is a party to the real estate dispute who successfully appealed the trial court's denial of litigation costs.
Pam McEwen
She is a co-party in the real estate litigation who received a favorable appellate ruling regarding cost recovery.
The Sheltons
They are the opposing parties in the real estate matter who failed to respond to an offer of judgment within 21 days.
The details
The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the interest of justice exception to deny the costs requested by the McEwens. While the court ordered the payment of litigation and expert fees, it upheld the trial court's initial decision to deny the recovery of attorney fees.
Timeline
May 1, 2025: The trial court issued an order denying the request for actual costs and fees.
October 6, 2026: The appellate court issued its decision reversing the lower court's cost ruling.
Culture Shift
This case highlights the strict enforcement of procedural rules in Michigan real estate litigation, specifically regarding the financial consequences of rejecting settlement offers. The decision underscores how judicial discretion under the interest of justice exception remains limited.
Property owners involved in litigation should note that rejecting an offer of judgment can lead to significant financial liability for the other party's costs if the final verdict is more favorable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of carefully evaluating settlement offers to avoid unexpected legal expenses.
The takeaway
This decision serves as a reminder that courts will strictly apply procedural rules for costs even when they deny other requested items like attorney fees. Litigants should prioritize responsiveness to formal offers to minimize their exposure to post-trial financial obligations.
Further reading
Learn more about local property regulations and legal trends in the Michigan Residential section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Do you believe court rules requiring payment of opponent legal costs promote fairness in local disputes?
