Background
Neighbors Wesley and Gail Pfeiffer and Michael and Denise Yuchuck disputed ownership of a two- to three-foot strip of land bordering the Pfeiffers’ driveway and the Yuchucks’ property. Both sides obtained surveys in 2019. After the Pfeiffers filed suit in 2021, the parties agreed in a written court order to retain an independent surveyor, accept the resulting boundaries, and share the survey’s cost equally. The joint survey showed that the Yuchucks owned the disputed land, and the circuit court granted them summary disposition.
The Yuchucks sought costs including $3,200 for their earlier surveys, $2,399 for their half of the court-ordered joint survey, $300 for mediation, $40 in motion fees, and $40 in statutory sundry costs. The circuit court awarded $340 for mediation and filing or motion fees but denied the remaining amounts. The Yuchucks appealed, challenging the handling of the Pfeiffers’ objection and the denial of the survey and sundry costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the Pfeiffers’ objection to the bill of costs was untimely under MCR 2.625(F)(3), even assuming the objection period did not begin until the circuit court denied reconsideration. The circuit court therefore erred by considering the objection, but the error was harmless because the Yuchucks were not legally entitled to the disputed survey expenses.
The court affirmed the denial of both survey claims. The earlier surveys were completed well before suit, and the Yuchucks offered no evidence that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation or that the surveyor would have testified at trial. The joint survey was also not taxable because the parties had agreed by court order to share its cost equally. The court nevertheless held that the Yuchucks were entitled to an additional $40 in sundry costs under MCL 600.2441 and remanded for an amended costs order.
Key Takeaways
- An objection to a bill of costs must be filed within the 14-day period prescribed by MCR 2.625(F)(3).
- A prevailing party may recover only costs authorized by statute or court rule; litigation-related expenses are not automatically taxable costs.
- Prelitigation survey expenses are not recoverable as expert-witness fees without evidence that the work involved trial preparation or testimony the expert would have provided.
- A court denying otherwise allowable statutory costs must state its reasons in writing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between ordinary litigation expenses and statutorily taxable costs. Prevailing parties seeking expert-related expenses must establish that the work qualifies as compensable trial preparation, even when the case ends before trial.
It also confirms that cost-objection deadlines are mandatory, although an error in considering a late objection will not require reversal when the challenged expenses were legally unrecoverable. Conversely, a court must exercise and explain its discretion before denying costs expressly authorized by statute.