v. Malotke, 32 Mich.App. 289, 188 N.W.2d 673, 675-76 (1971), which expressly held that the oral statements of a trial judge did not constitute the rendition of a judgment of divorce because those statements were prospective in nature and did not completely settle the division of property between the couple. Accord Heck v. Bailey, 204 Mich. 54, 169 N.W. 940, 941 (1918); Stackhouse v. Stackhouse, 193 Mich.App. 437, 484 N.W.2d 723, 725 (1992); People v. Turner, 181 Mich.App. 680, 449 N.W.2d 680, 681-82 (1989) (per curiam); Hall v. Fortino, 158 Mich.App. 663, 405 N.W.2d 106, 108 (1986); People v. Stackpoole, 144 Mich.App. 291, 375 N.W.2d 419, 423 (1985); see also Department of Treasury v. Central Wayne County Sanitation Auth., 186 Mich.App. 58, 463 N.W.2d 120, 123-24 (1990) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). This confusion in the Michigan cases has not
holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final holding that the failure of the appellant to discuss in the opening brief an issue on which the trial court might have relied as a basis for its judgment  results in an affirmance of that judgment holding that a claim for interest on a money judgment did not accrue until the judgment was rendered which was the date on which the trial court issued its order holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict