Donald Ray Ferguson v. James D Wines
331014
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 23, 2017Background
- In 2014 plaintiffs (Donald Ray and Diane Ferguson) hired attorney James Wines to represent them in a St. Clair County criminal matter under a flat-fee/ hourly contract; plaintiffs were convicted.
- After the criminal trial Wines sued in Sanilac District Court for unpaid fees; plaintiffs filed pro se counterclaims alleging ineffective assistance, perjury, MRPC violations, fraud, and contempt.
- The Sanilac District Court granted Wines summary disposition on his fee claim and dismissed plaintiffs’ counterclaims; the Sanilac Circuit Court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Before (or contemporaneous with) appellate activity, plaintiffs filed a separate pro se suit in Washtenaw Circuit Court alleging claims (fraud, malpractice, slander, malicious prosecution, RICO, MRPC violation, FDCPA) arising from Wines’s representation and seeking $1.5 million.
- Wines moved for summary disposition in Washtenaw Circuit Court arguing compulsory joinder and res judicata barred the claims; the trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiffs appealed; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washtenaw suit may proceed when prior Sanilac action arose from same representation | Ferguson argued the Washtenaw court had jurisdiction (contract signed there) and claims were distinct; procedural objections to Wines’ filings | Wines argued MCR 2.203(A) compulsory-joinder/ res judicata bar because claims arise from same transaction decided in Sanilac | Court held claims barred by MCR 2.203(A) and res judicata; summary disposition proper under (C)(8) |
| Whether Wines’s motion/attachments violated court rules so they lacked authority | Ferguson claimed Wines’ filings failed to comply with form rules and used unpublished opinion improperly | Wines contended his motion complied with rules and unpublished opinions may be persuasive | Court rejected Ferguson’s form-rule objections, found filings sufficient, and noted unpublished opinions may be considered for persuasive value |
| Whether trial court improperly rejected plaintiffs’ December 14 motion for fee waiver, denying due process | Ferguson asserted indigence and that fees should have been waived | Wines noted the court considered plaintiffs’ responsive filings and ruled on the merits | Court found plaintiffs did not show prejudice or a meritorious basis; no due-process violation shown |
| Whether appellants preserved appellate arguments and cited authority properly | Ferguson filed perfunctory, poorly cited appellate brief, placing many arguments in statement of facts | Wines implicitly argued issues are meritless and inadequately briefed | Court held plaintiffs’ cursory treatment amounted to abandonment of many arguments but reviewed discrete issues and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheesman v. Williams, 311 Mich. App. 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate briefs must develop legal argument and cite authority)
- Eldred v. Ziny, 246 Mich. App. 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (issues given cursory treatment may be deemed abandoned)
- Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for summary disposition motions)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Mich. 1999) (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(8) and when dismissal is appropriate)
- Bd. of Cty. Rd. Comm’rs for Cty. of Eaton v. Schultz, 205 Mich. App. 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (res judicata bars subsequent suit on same matter)
- In re Kanija, 308 Mich. App. 660 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (unpublished opinions may be persuasive authority)