DAWSON FAMILY LAW PLLC V MARK M WALSH

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
DAWSON FAMILY LAW PLLC V MARK M WALSH
Docket No. 376610
LC No. 2025-000491-AV
Christopher M. Murray
Presiding Judge
James Robert Redford
Kathleen A. Feeney
Judges
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the delayed application for leave to
appeal, the Court VACATES the circuit court’s July 8, 2025 order, VACATES the district court’s
December 23, 2024 order of dismissal, and REMANDS to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this order. The district court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion for summary
disposition. However, following the bench trial, the district court erred by entering an order for “no cause
of action” without making any findings of facts or conclusions of law. See MCR 2.517(A)(1) and (2). In
its role as an appellate court reviewing the district court’s decision, the circuit court erred by making
independent findings in the first instance and affirming the district court on the basis of findings that the
district court did not make. See In re Martin, 200 Mich App 703, 717; 504 NW2d 917 (1993). Absent
adequate findings by the district court, a remand to the district court is warranted because the record is
insufficient for appellate review. See Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209 Mich App
165, 176-177; 530 NW2d 772 (1995). On remand, the district court shall make pertinent findings of fact
and conclusions of law based on the existing trial record with regard to plaintiff’s claims for account
stated, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment as well as plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
We do not retain jurisdiction.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on
Date
March 26, 2026

-- 1 of 1 --