Djb Rentals Inc v. Najim Almaliky
329562
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- David Brown (Stay Dry Basement Waterproofing; Grand River Auto) and Najim Almaliky formed a joint used-car business and co-owned a building; each held ATM/debit access to the business account.
- Brown alleged defendant misappropriated funds (ATM withdrawals, missing deposits) and sought relief; defendant counterclaimed that Brown diverted funds to himself and Stay Dry and sought accounting and sale of the property.
- At bench trial the court excluded Stay Dry as a plaintiff, heard competing testimony about account reconciliations, deposits, ATM usage, and vehicle ownership/sales, and reviewed checks and limited documentary evidence.
- Trial court found plaintiffs failed to prove defendant misappropriated partnership funds but found defendant proved Brown misappropriated certain funds (checks Brown wrote to himself/Stay Dry) and awarded defendant half of those amounts plus half of proved vehicle-sale proceeds.
- Post-judgment the court reduced the real-estate sale price by $2,200 for debris removal, after denying plaintiffs’ adjournment request and crediting defendant’s evidence.
- Plaintiffs appealed multiple rulings; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court clearly err in rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that defendant misappropriated partnership funds / accounting? | Brown argued records and reconciliations showed large shortfalls and ATM misuse by Almaliky. | Almaliky argued records were incomplete, other employees had access to funds/cards, and deposits explained by installment sales; he produced checks showing Brown’s diversions. | No clear error: court credited gaps, lack of direct evidence tying withdrawals to defendant, and explanation of deposit discrepancies; plaintiffs failed to meet burden. |
| Was dismissal of Stay Dry improper (motion in limine)? | Plaintiffs argued surprise renewal of motion and lack of notice/briefing; Stay Dry had been providing space/payroll. | Almaliky argued complaint stated no independent claim for Stay Dry; renewed motion was procedurally proper. | No abuse of discretion: court properly considered and dismissed Stay Dry; plaintiffs conceded no meaningful distinction between Brown and Stay Dry. |
| Did denial of adjournment / alleged lack of notice to an evidentiary hearing violate due process? | Plaintiffs said they lacked notice, needed time to subpoena witnesses about debris/vehicles, and had insufficient time to respond to defendant’s damages brief. | Defendant said court had set the hearing, produced photographic evidence of debris placed under Brown’s watch, and served brief; cleanup cost was reasonable. | No abuse of discretion or due-process violation: court had given dates on record, plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged need for hearing, proof of service exists, and court reasonably credited defendant. |
| Did judge demonstrate bias (impartiality concerns: hostility, questioning witness, ruling)? | Plaintiffs claimed judicial impatience, direct examination/coaching of defendant, not taking Brown’s testimony showed bias. | Defendant asserted judicial questioning was proper under MRE 614(b), the court acted to elicit/clarify testimony, and rulings alone don’t establish bias. | No judicial bias: questioning permitted to elicit testimony, rephrasing to avoid hearsay/speculation appropriate, critical remarks and rulings do not establish partiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chelsea Investment Group LLC v. Chelsea, 288 Mich. App. 239 (bench-trial standard of review for findings of fact)
- Byker v. Mannes, 465 Mich. 637 (partnership formation may exist despite subjective intent)
- Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich. 182 (appellate briefing must develop arguments)
- People v. Stevens, 498 Mich. 162 (judicial questioning of witnesses evaluated under MRE 614(b))
- Cain v. Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich. 470 (trial judge must be neutral; standards for assessing impartiality)