9.7Motions for Rehearing or Reconsideration

“Unless another rule provides a different procedure for reconsideration of a decision . . . , a motion for rehearing or reconsideration of the decision on a motion must be served and filed not later than 21 days after entry of an order deciding the motion.” MCR 2.119(F)(1). “No response to the motion may be filed, and there is no oral argument, unless the court otherwise directs.” MCR 2.119(F)(2). “Generally, and without restricting the discretion of the court, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error.” MCR 2.119(F)(3).

“The purpose of MCR 2.119(F) is to allow a trial court to immediately correct any obvious mistakes it may have made in ruling on a motion, which would otherwise be subject to correction on appeal, but at a much greater expense to the parties. The time requirement for filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing insures that the motion will be brought expeditiously.” Bers v Bers, 161 Mich App 457, 462 (1987) (internal citation omitted).

“[MCR 2.119(F)(3)] does not categorically prevent a trial court from revisiting an issue even when [a] motion for reconsideration presents the same issue already ruled on; in fact, it allows considerable discretion to correct mistakes.” Macomb Co Dep’t of Human Servs v Anderson, 304 Mich App 750, 754 (2014). See also People v Walters, 266 Mich App 341, 350 (2005) (“the palpable error provision in MCR 2.119(F)(3) is not mandatory and only provides guidance to a court about when it may be appropriate to consider a motion for rehearing or reconsideration[]”).

Where a different judge is seated in the circuit court that issued the ruling or order for which a party seeks reconsideration, the judge reviews the prior court’s factual findings for clear error. Walters, 266 Mich App at 352. The fact that the successor judge is reviewing the matter for the first time does not authorize the judge to conduct a de novo review. Id. at 352. Similarly, “‘rehearing [or reconsideration] will not be ordered on the ground merely that a change of members of the bench has either taken place, or is about to occur.’” People v White, 493 Mich 962, 962 (2013), quoting Peoples v Evening News Ass’n, 51 Mich 11, 21 (1883).

A motion for reconsideration or rehearing may not be entertained by a court after entry of an order changing venue to another court, unless the order specifies an effective date. Frankfurth v Detroit Med Ctr, 297 Mich App 654, 658-661 (2012) (holding that “once a transfer of venue is made, the transferee court has full jurisdiction over the action and, therefore, the transferor court has none[; a]ny motion for rehearing or reconsideration would have to be heard by whichever court has jurisdiction over the action at the time the motion is brought, which, after entry of an order changing venue, would be the transferee court[]”).

“[A] circuit court, sitting as an appellate court, [may] reconsider a judgment or order.” Walters, 266 Mich App at 349.