Contractual attorney fees; “Relevant factors”; Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n; The law of the case doctrine; Rott v Rott; “Rule of mandate”; Great Lakes Eye, PC (GLE)

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed Part II(B)(4) of the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 81210 in the 3/20/24 edition). It held that the trial court “was free to consider ‘relevant factors’ when determining the appropriate attorney fee award” and that it did not abuse its discretion in ruling “that the fact that defendant prevailed in this litigation based upon a false premise was a ‘relevant factor’ when fashioning” the award. The court noted that the application of the law of the case doctrine is limited to questions of law and requires that the underlying facts materially remain the same. In addition, when new evidence is presented, the “doctrine does not preclude a trial court on remand from revisiting a factual question underlying a legal determination.” The doctrine in this case “prevented the lower courts from revisiting the judgment that was granted in defendant’s favor. Because neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals had previously made an attorney fee determination, however, the . . . doctrine did not preclude the trial court from considering newly introduced evidence to determine the appropriate attorney fee award.” The court further noted that “the ‘rule of mandate’ ‘embodies the well-accepted principle in our jurisprudence that a lower court must strictly comply with, and may not exceed the scope of, a remand order.’” The trial court here correctly determined “that the rule of mandate prohibited it from granting plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the original judgment.” But the rule did not prohibit it “from making its finding. The Court of Appeals remanded the current matter to the trial court ‘to determine whether plaintiff is a successor to GLE’s liabilities under the employment contract and whether plaintiff is liable for defendant’s attorney fees under’” § 18 of that contract. Thus, on remand the trial court “was within its mandate to consider newly introduced evidence when considering the attorney fee issue because that evidence was dispositive of the mandate to determine ‘GLE’s liabilities under the employment contract.’” The court vacated the Court of Appeals’ remand instructions and reinstated the trial court’s judgment awarding defendant-Krebs $0 in attorney fees. It denied leave to appeal in all other respects because it was not persuaded that it should review the remaining questions presented.