COA 375509 HALEY SANDULA V EASTWOOD CUSTOM HOMES INC Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 8/19/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
HALEY SANDULA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2026
11:47 AM
v No. 375509
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
EASTWOOD CUSTOM HOMES, INC., LC No. 2025-037385-CK
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ACKERMAN, P.J., and REDFORD and FEENEY, JJ.
FEENEY, J. (concurring).
I respectfully concur with the majority’s opinion, but I write separately to discuss my
concern with granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on a nonbinding
mediation provision.
MCR 2.116(C)(7) provides that the trial court may grant summary disposition in favor of
the moving party when, “[e]ntry of judgment, dismissal of the action, or other relief is appropriate
because of . . . an agreement to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum . . . .” “The existence of
an arbitration agreement and the enforceability of its terms are judicial questions for the court, not
the arbitrators.” Fromm v Meemic Ins Co, 264 Mich App 302, 305; 690 NW2d 528 (2004). “To
ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, a court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision
in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and
whether the dispute is expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract.” Id. at 305-
306 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this case, the plain language of the purchase agreement did not include an arbitration
agreement or requirement to litigate in a different forum; instead, it included an agreement to
participate in “non-binding mediation . . . .” Nonbinding mediation would not preclude plaintiff
from otherwise seeking redress in the trial court; therefore, nonbinding mediation could not
“dispos[e] of the claim before commencement of the action” like the other avenues listed under
MCR 2.116(C)(7). Defendant has not cited any jurisprudence in which summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(7) was the appropriate remedy for a party’s failure to undergo a contract’s
nonbinding mediation clause, nor can I find any jurisprudence demanding such a result.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
In any event, because the trial court failed to address the threshold issue of plaintiff’s
challenge to the purchase agreement’s enforceability, I agree with the majority opinion that remand
for further proceedings is appropriate.
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

-- 2 of 2 --