Carl a Anderson v. Carole Chaundy
328082
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- In 2007 Carl Anderson executed a land contract with Kenneth Hawk for a Grosse Pointe Park home; in 2009 they terminated the land contract and entered a lease.
- Plaintiffs allege that Hawk failed to comply with the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, and that the City notified them in May 2008 that parts of the house contained lead-based paint, causing $5,898 in repainting costs.
- Plaintiffs also allege that during a post-eviction removal of their belongings (after a December 1, 2010 municipal court eviction order and writ of restitution), most personal property was placed on the front lawn for about an hour and then taken away by defendants’ agents to an unknown destination for disposal, constituting conversion.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing the lead-paint claim was time-barred by the four-year federal statute of limitations and the conversion claims were barred by res judicata because eviction proceedings had already adjudicated the dispute over possession.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion, finding the lead-paint claim accrued no later than May 29, 2008 and was time-barred, and that res judicata barred the conversion claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion claims are barred by res judicata | Anderson: conversion occurred during/after execution of writ; could not have been litigated in earlier eviction | Hawk: eviction adjudicated possession; related claims must have been litigated; res judicata bars relitigation | Reversed: res judicata does not bar conversion claims because the alleged conversion occurred after and separate from the possession adjudication |
| Whether landlord is immune under wrongful-eviction statute for alleged conversion | Anderson: wrongful acts (theft/destruction) not authorized by writ and not incidental to eviction | Hawk: eviction executed under writ; statutory immunity applies | Court: Immunity under MCL 600.2918(3) covers only acts undertaken pursuant to the order; alleged conversion may fall outside that scope, so immunity not established as a matter of law |
| Whether lead-based paint claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) | Anderson: claim accrues at lease execution (Dec 29, 2009) due to continuing violation; complaint filed Dec 4, 2013 is timely | Hawk: plaintiff knew of lead paint in May 2008; four-year limitations period expired | Affirmed: damages (repainting) arose in May 2008; claim accrued then and is time-barred; continuing-violation argument not sufficiently developed |
| Whether dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8) was proper | Anderson: pleadings state viable conversion and timely lead-paint claims | Hawk: pleadings show legal defects (statute, res judicata) | Mixed: dismissal reversed as to conversion claims; affirmed as to federal lead-paint claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich. 157 (court reviews de novo a C(8) motion)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (pleadings accepted as true for C(8) motions)
- Washington v Sinai Hosp of Greater Detroit, 478 Mich. 412 (res judicata standard)
- Foremost Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 439 Mich. 378 (definition of conversion)
- Sewell v Clean Cut Mgmt, Inc, 463 Mich. 569 (eviction proceedings bar relitigation only of possession issue)
- Collins v Comerica Bank, 468 Mich. 628 (de novo review of statute-of-limitations legal questions)