John Francis Lechner v. Robin Lechner
335488
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- John Francis Lechner sought to set aside the property-division portion of his 2013 divorce judgment, alleging fraud on the court and submitting what he called "newly discovered evidence."
- Judge Charles Nebel presided over the divorce; Michael Winnick was Robin Lechner’s divorce attorney. After entry of divorce judgment, Lechner moved for relief; Nebel denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a prior unpublished opinion.
- Lechner filed an independent action invoking MCR 2.612(C)(3) to vacate the divorce property division as obtained by fraud, and reasserted many of the same factual claims and evidence presented in the earlier post-judgment motion.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7): dismissing claims against Robin Lechner and Winnick based on res judicata/collateral estoppel and dismissing claims against Judge Nebel based on judicial immunity; it did not rule on (C)(8) for Nebel.
- On appeal, this Court reviewed the (C)(7) rulings de novo and affirmed, holding the fraud allegations were precluded by earlier proceedings and that judicial immunity protected Judge Nebel; an attorney’s joint self-representation claim was unpreserved and abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lechner/Winnick can be sued for fraud on the court after prior post-judgment motion denied | Lechner claims fraud occurred at trial and submits newly discovered evidence to rescind property division | Defendants argue the claims were already litigated/decided in the prior post-judgment proceedings and are precluded | Court: Collateral estoppel/res judicata bar relitigation; summary disposition for Lechner and Winnick affirmed |
| Whether newly discovered evidence avoids preclusion | Lechner contends evidence was unavailable earlier or ‘‘mysteriously disappeared,’’ so preclusion shouldn't apply | Defendants note plaintiff had opportunity to present evidence earlier; mere new presentation doesn't defeat preclusion | Court: Plaintiff failed to identify or justify new evidence; preclusion applies; argument abandoned for lack of record support |
| Whether Judge Nebel is liable for alleged participation in fraud or biased conduct | Lechner asserts Nebel failed to review the full record and thus permitted fraud; alleges bias | Nebel invokes judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity | Court: Nebel acted within judicial authority in dividing assets; absolute judicial immunity applies; summary disposition for Nebel affirmed |
| Whether Winnick’s joint self-representation created a disqualifying conflict | Lechner contends Winnick’s joint self-rep and representation of Robin created a conflict | Defendants argue joint interests and no showing of specific prejudice; issue unpreserved and unsupported | Court: Issue abandoned and unpreserved; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (trial court may rely on documentary evidence in MCR 2.116(C)(7) review)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within judicial jurisdiction)
- Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co., 469 Mich. 679 (defensive use of collateral estoppel by parties not in prior action)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (presentation of evidence in second proceeding does not avoid preclusion if it could have been offered earlier)
- Diehl v. Danuloff, 242 Mich. App. 120 (Michigan precedent recognizing absolute judicial immunity)