Motion for relief of judgment; “Reasonable time”; MCR 2.612(C)(2); Perkins v SMART (Unpub); Peterson v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc; Evidence & criteria for relief from judgment

The court held that “the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for relief and setting aside the order granting defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition.” It concluded “plaintiff failed to move for relief within a ‘reasonable time.’” It further found that in “light of Peterson, a subsequently released case may not serve as the ground for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f).” Finally, it determined that “plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria necessary to warrant relief from the order granting defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition.” As to whether plaintiff moved for relief within a “reasonable time,” the court held that under the circumstances, “the timeframe was unreasonable.” She failed to “explain why she waited 19 months to move for relief and waited for more than five months after the” decision on which she relied, Perkins, was issued. And while she claimed “that the unpublished Perkins decision served as the foundation for her motion, she still waited over five months after it was issued to file the motion for relief from order. Because of the delay, trial was scheduled to occur within a month of the hearing on the motion for relief from order, and the grant of the motion substantially altered the breadth of the case, specifically the services and costs that defendant would have to challenge at trial.” More importantly, Peterson controlled this appeal. “In light of Peterson, a subsequently released case may not serve as the ground for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f).” Further, she did not “establish that defendant engaged in misconduct and deliberately delayed filing the dispositive motion in order to obtain the advantage of the one-year back rule.” Reversed and remanded.