Denhof v. Challa
311 Mich. App. 499
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Stanley Denhof, serving a prison sentence for CSC I, sued Ottawa County Friend of the Court (FOC) head Jennell Challa pro se alleging three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice arising from FOC actions in child-support proceedings.
- Denhof's child-support obligation was suspended after his conviction; the FOC initially endorsed that suspension, then sought reinstatement after concluding imprisoned parents convicted of CSC against a child should not get suspension.
- Dispute over an alleged $558 overpayment and FOC fees culminated in a family-court hearing (April 2012) where Challa made representations about counsel’s access to the FOC file and about when she learned of Denhof’s conviction. The family court ordered support remained suspended and set repayment obligations to zero.
- Denhof alleged Challa misrepresented facts to the family court (fraud counts) and knowingly destroyed or concealed a June 2002 FOC document that would have been exculpatory in his criminal case (obstruction count).
- The Ottawa Circuit judges recused because Challa is a court employee; SCAO assigned a Kent Circuit judge. Challa moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) asserting quasi-judicial/absolute immunity and the judicial-proceedings privilege. The trial court granted summary disposition. Denhof appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraud claims survive against FOC head | Denhof: Challa knowingly made false factual and legal representations to the family court amounting to actionable fraud | Challa: Actions were within official FOC duties and shielded by quasi-judicial/absolute immunity and judicial-proceedings privilege | Held: Quasi-judicial immunity (both job-function and judicial-proceedings branches) bars the fraud claims |
| Applicability of judicial-proceedings privilege to alleged false statements | Denhof: Falsity/malice removes any privilege; statements were fraudulent | Challa: Statements were made in the course of a judicial proceeding and thus absolutely privileged if relevant/pertinent | Held: Privilege applies; falsity or malice does not abrogate it when statements are pertinent to proceeding |
| Viability of obstruction-of-justice claim under MCL 750.483a(5) | Denhof: Challa knowingly destroyed/withheld exculpatory FOC document, obstructing justice | Challa: (1) Criminal statute does not create a private civil cause of action; (2) Complaint fails to allege causation, damages, or knowing destruction | Held: Dismissed — Denhof failed to address trial-court bases; no civil cause of action under the statute and failure to plead elements/causation/damages |
| Procedural challenges (recusal/assignment, judicial bias, premature summary disposition) | Denhof: Lack of notice of recusal/assignment, trial-court bias, discovery incomplete so summary disposition premature | Challa: Proper recusal and assignment; immunity is a legal bar that makes discovery irrelevant | Held: Procedural objections rejected; recusal/assignment were appropriate; summary disposition not premature given immunity doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Diehl v. Danuloff, 242 Mich. App. 120 (quasi-judicial immunity for court-appointed evaluators performing fact-finding and recommendations)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (absolute privilege for statements made during judicial proceedings; falsity or malice does not abrogate privilege)
- Martin v. Children’s Aid Soc’y, 215 Mich. App. 88 (absolute immunity for entities performing functions essential to the court in child-protection matters)
- Johnson v. Granholm, 662 F.2d 449 (6th Cir.) (FOC acts performed within scope of quasi-judicial duties entitled to immunity)
- Pierce v. Pierce, 162 Mich. App. 370 (suspension of support for incarcerated noncustodial parent unless shown income/assets)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (framework for considering governmental-immunity-related materials in summary-disposition context)