K&M Real Estate LLC v. Rubloff Development Group Inc
333097
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Parties' parcels were subject to a recorded Declaration requiring each owner to maintain parking/roadways "in a ‘first-class condition'" and to share maintenance costs pro rata by building square footage.
- Plaintiff K & M sued to enforce the maintenance agreement; trial court found the K‑Mart parcel not maintained and held Rubloff liable for repairs, authorized plaintiff to perform repairs and obtain reimbursement or a judicial lien, and found defendants had waived the cost‑sharing provision.
- A November 28, 2012 judgment and a March 11, 2013 order required defendants to pay $346,389; defendants and intervenor Ruby completed the ordered repairs without a stay pending appeal.
- This Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on three points: Rubloff was not liable as KM Port Huron's representative, the cost‑sharing provision had not been waived (required written modification), and no first‑priority lien was authorized; the March 11, 2013 order was vacated.
- Ruby then moved in the trial court to "enforce" the appellate decision, seeking pro rata reimbursement for the repair work it paid for while the appeal was pending; the trial court denied the motion, stating a separate action was required.
- Ruby appealed the trial court's denial; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Ruby's motion to enforce the appellate decision | Plaintiff: case concluded; trial court acted properly | Ruby: trial court should have "enforced" the appellate ruling and ordered reimbursement | Court: trial court did not say it lacked jurisdiction; it required a separate action — no error |
| Whether MCR 2.612(C)(1)(e) relief (vacated prior judgment) required trial court to order reimbursement to Ruby | Plaintiff: reversal does not automatically create entitlement to reimbursement in this case | Ruby: it paid the full cost under an order later reversed, so relief under (e) is appropriate | Court: (e) did not compel relief because appellate opinion did not hold plaintiff liable to pay Ruby for the specific repairs done during the appeal |
| Whether the Court of Appeals' reversal meant plaintiff was liable for pro rata share of repairs actually made during appeal | Plaintiff: reversal enforces cost‑sharing provision going forward only | Ruby: reversal requires plaintiff to reimburse its pro rata share of the specific work performed | Court: appellate decision enforced the written cost‑sharing provision but did not rule plaintiff owed reimbursement for the specific repairs made while appeal pending |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Ruby's motion for relief from judgment | Plaintiff: denial was within trial court's discretion | Ruby: denial was an abuse because it paid under a vacated order | Court: no abuse of discretion; separate action required and motion was not the proper vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Heugel v. Heugel, 237 Mich App 471 (discussion of abuse‑of‑discretion review for relief from judgment)
- Saffian v. Simmons, 477 Mich 8 (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich 372 (abuse‑of‑discretion framework)