Betty Warnecke v. Jeff White
334233
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Defendants (landlords) leased a Chesterfield residence to plaintiffs beginning July 2014; disputes arose over alleged failure to repair plumbing and mold, and alleged tenant breaches.
- Plaintiffs filed a circuit-court complaint (Sept 28, 2015) seeking damages of at least $25,000; defendants filed a district-court action for possession and unpaid rent and also filed a counter-complaint in circuit court alleging fraud, waste, and breach.
- The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition in both courts; the circuit court found plaintiffs’ proofs did not establish damages meeting the $25,000 circuit-court threshold and concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The circuit court dismissed/transfered the circuit complaint and transferred the counter-complaint to district court under MCR 2.227(A)(1); the court denied defendants’ other dismissal arguments without prejudice to renewal in district court.
- Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the jurisdictional dismissal was denied; defendants timely appealed from that denial. The district-court possession action later became moot after the property was foreclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness / appellate jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued defendants’ appeal was untimely because it wasn’t filed within 21 days of Jan 20, 2016 order | Defendants relied on MCR 7.204(A)(1)(b) timing from denial of plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion | Appeal was timely: defendants filed within 21 days of denial of the post-judgment motion; Court has jurisdiction |
| 2. Transfer of case to district court | Plaintiffs supported transfer based on lack of circuit-court jurisdiction from proofs | Defendants argued transfer was improper (no notice/hearing, no bad faith, counter-complaint within jurisdiction) | Transfer was proper under MCR 2.227(A)(1); no bad-faith pleading shown; court may question jurisdiction sua sponte |
| 3. Election of remedies (simultaneous circuit damage claim and district possession defense) | Plaintiffs maintained their circuit damages claim was proper | Defendants argued plaintiffs were barred by election of remedies | Issue not addressed on appeal (abandoned): defendants failed to preserve/raise it properly; no relief granted |
| 4. Stay/adjournment of district possession proceedings | Plaintiffs relied on stipulated delay to resolve concurrent issues in circuit court | Defendants argued the district court exceeded the 56-day adjournment limit in MCR 4.201(J)(1) | Delay was based on the parties’ stipulation (an allowed exception); issue is moot due to foreclosure |
| 5. Attorney fees and sanctions | Plaintiffs opposed fees and sanctions; argued lease provision didn’t apply and complaint wasn’t frivolous | Defendants sought fees under lease and sanctions under MCR 2.625/MCL 600.2591 for frivolous litigation | Denied: lease provision did not unambiguously cover litigation fees here; no finding of frivolousness; defendants were not prevailing party in circuit court |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 499 Mich 211 (Michigan Supreme Court) (amount-in-controversy for jurisdiction is determined from pleadings; district court limited to <= $25,000)
- Polkton Charter Twp. v. Pellegrom, 265 Mich App 88 (preservation of issues for appellate review)
- Yoost v. Caspari, 295 Mich App 209 (trial court must police its own jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (American rule for attorney fees; fees generally not awarded absent statute, rule, or contract)
- Badiee v. Brighton Area Schools, 265 Mich App 343 (appellate courts will not develop undeveloped arguments; issues inadequately briefed are abandoned)