Scope of an appeal; The court’s jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)(1); “Final order”; MCR 7.202(6); Effect of a default; Show-cause order; In re Moroun; Demolition of a blighted structure under a township ordinance

The court concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant-property owner’s appeal by right of the order for demolition of a blighted structure on her property, and even if it did, she would be unable to prevail on the merits. A default judgment was entered against her. “Despite enough time elapsing for multiple adjournments of the show-cause hearing, defendant never moved to set aside the default judgment. Instead, she simply asked the [trial] court for more time to comply with it. Further, the order from which defendant has filed this claim of appeal is a show-cause order.” The court noted it explained in Moroun “that ‘an order finding a party in civil contempt of court is not a final order for purposes of appellate review.’” It was unclear “from the record if defendant was formally held in contempt of court. However, even if framed as an order enforcing the prior default judgment, defendant still maintains no right to appeal because she never moved to set aside the default.” She argued that the trial “court abused its discretion and clearly erred by determining without any expert testimony that the building was blighted in violation of the Township’s ordinances.” The court disagreed, noting the ordinance did “not require any expert testimony for a court to make findings regarding whether a building is blighted. Moreover, the complaint went unanswered, the court records do not show any defects in the motion for entry of default, and the [trial] court followed proper procedure by entering a default judgment. Because defendant did not answer the complaint, the [trial] court accepted allegations in the complaint as true and deemed the allegations of the blighted conditions admitted by defendant.” Given that she never moved to set aside the default, she “effectively admitted that the building is blighted and in violation of the” ordinance. The court also rejected her claim that the trial court should have allowed her more time to rehabilitate the structure. It concluded the “trial court acted reasonably within its discretion by ordering demolition because defendant failed on numerous occasions to show any proof that she is capable of performing the necessary repairs.” Affirmed.