1.10Application of Newly Adopted or Previous Version of Court Rule to Pending Actions
“There is no bright-line rule for determining when an amended or previous version of a rule applies; rather, the court must look more closely to the particular circumstances of the case at issue and at the purpose of the amendment.” Webster v Osguthorpe, ___ Mich ___, ___ (2025) (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “the question of whether a newly amended or adopted court rule applies is governed by MCR 1.102 because it provides its own specific rules for the application of new and amended court rules that should take precedence over the generalized rules of retrospectivity and prospectivity.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). MCR 1.102 states:
“These rules take effect on March 1, 1985. They govern all proceedings in actions brought on or after that date, and all further proceedings in actions then pending. A court may permit a pending action to proceed under the former rules if it finds that the application of these rules to that action would not be feasible or would work injustice.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___.
“Although the rule explicitly addresses the initial adoption of the modern court rules in 1985, those principles from MCR 1.102 have been applied not only to the initial adoption of the rules, but also to later adopted or amended rules.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___ (cleaned up). “That is, a newly adopted court rule will not be applied to pending actions if a party acts, or fails to act, in reliance on the prior rules and the party’s action or inaction has consequences under the new rules that were not present under the old rules.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up) (noting that “the norm is to apply the newly adopted court rules to pending actions unless there is reason to continue applying the old rules”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“MCR 1.102 provides the pertinent analysis because it specifically permits trial courts to apply former court rules if doing so would prevent injustice.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___. “The injustice exception to applying the current rule in MCR 1.102 must be applied narrowly and with restraint, such that the exception does not subsume the rule itself[.]” Webster, ___ Mich at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “An injustice is not present merely because a different result would be reached under the new rules.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up) (“adopt[ing] the framework announced in Reitmeyer[ v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332 (1999),] as the appropriate guide for trial courts to follow when determining whether to apply a newly adopted court rule to pending actions”). Accordingly, “an individualized determination guided by the nonexhaustive factors from Reitmeyer—including timing, purpose of the newly adopted rule, possible gamesmanship, and reliance—is appropriate given that these factors bear on whether injustice would occur.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___.
B.Caselaw: Determining When An Amended or Previous Version of a Rule Applies
“[D]uring the pendency of the litigation” in Webster v Osguthorpe, ___ Mich ___ (2025), “[the] Court amended MCR 2.403 and, while MCR 2.403(O) had previously permitted an award of costs and attorney fees as sanctions against a losing party who rejects a case-evaluation award (unless the verdict is more favorable to them than the award), the amendment . . . eliminated the availability of case-evaluation sanctions altogether.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___. “The trial court appropriately cited the test from Reitmeyer[ v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332 (1999), explaining that because of the court-rule change during the pendency of the case, the current version of the rule ‘applies unless the result thereunder would work an injustice.’” Webster, ___ Mich at ___. “The court found significant that case evaluation occurred more than a year before the rule change.” Id. at ___. “Also significant was that before the change became effective, the parties attended multiple settlement conferences, participated in a facilitation session, and had three different trial dates.” Id. at ___. Accordingly, the trial court “found that plaintiff’s decisions to proceed to trial were made in reliance on the availability of sanctions under the former rule such that justice favored its application.” Id. at ___.
“Reitmeyer instructs that one factor guiding the determination is whether applying the amended rule furthers its purpose given the timing of events in the case.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___. “One purpose of eliminating case-evaluation sanctions was to level the playing field, particularly given that the process often benefitted defendants who could absorb costs across multiple cases.” Id. at ___. “Another reason was that stakeholders felt that case evaluation would often force settlements divorced from the merits of the claims.” Id. at ___. However, in Webster, “all the actions that could affect whether to award case-evaluation sanctions occurred before the amendment became effective.” Id. at ___. “Accordingly, because of the timing of events in the case, the goals of the amendment would not have been furthered.” Id. at ___. “Relatedly, the trial court should look to the parties’ reliance or lack of reliance on the rules that existed when they made pertinent strategic decisions.” Id. at ___. “[O]ne could find that plaintiff had every reason to believe that if the case went to trial, the trial would be over and any sanctions would be awarded under the old court rules.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted) (rejecting defendants’ argument “that, because the trial had not yet occurred by the date the amendment was effective, former MCR 2.403(O) was not applicable” considering that “the parties prepared for trial numerous times leading up to the rule change”).
“Applying the considerations from Reitmeyer, . . . the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding case-evaluation sanctions to plaintiff under former MCR 2.403(O).” Webster, ___ Mich at ___ (“[B]ecause defendants rejected the case-evaluation award and the verdict was not more favorable to defendants than the award, plaintiff [was] entitled to sanctions under the conditions of MCR 2.403(O) as it was applied.”).
A trial court’s decision regarding the application of a newly adopted court rule to a pending action is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Webster v Osguthorpe, ___ Mich ___, ___ (2025). “Abuse-of-discretion review is generally appropriate when a decision requires familiarity with the facts of the case and experience in maintaining a trial court docket.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up). “Relatedly, abuse-of-discretion review is appropriate when a question is not primarily legal but instead grows out of, and is bounded by, case-specific detailed factual circumstances.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“We cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion when the trial court correctly applied MCR 1.102 and Reitmeyer[ v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc, 237 Mich App 332 (1999)].”). “The factual findings undergirding these [nonexhaustive Reitmeyer] factors are reviewed for clear error.” Webster, ___ Mich at ___ n 8 (“We find no clear error in the trial court’s findings of fact.”).