Lamar Anderson v. Great Lakes Property & Investments Inc
332726
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff leased a unit month-to-month from DeRonne beginning in 2008; DeRonne’s ownership ended after tax foreclosure in 2015.
- 2486930 Ontario Inc. bought the property at tax auction; Great Lakes Property & Investment, managed by McMorris, notified occupants and demanded plaintiff vacate (letter giving 10 days; oral 3‑day demand).
- Defendants removed plaintiff’s belongings from the unit on January 15, 2016; plaintiff replaced the lock and returned belongings, and defendants returned January 16 and removed them again.
- Plaintiff sued under Michigan’s anti‑lockout statute (MCL 600.2918) and sought a TRO and injunctive relief, plus claims for conversion and emotional distress.
- The trial court sua sponte dismissed the complaint (apparently under MCR 2.116(I)(1)), finding plaintiff a "squatter" and that defendants were entitled to remove him; it denied reconsideration without explanation.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact existed about plaintiff’s tenancy, adequacy of notice, whether forcible entry occurred, and whether defendants reasonably believed the unit was abandoned; it remanded for further proceedings and held the TRO should have been considered on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under MCR 2.116(I)(1) was proper | Complaint states viable anti‑lockout and injunctive claims; factual disputes exist | Plaintiff was a squatter/abandoned unit so defendants could self‑help | Reversed: summary disposition improper because facts disputed and pleadings supported claims |
| Whether defendants’ entry/removal violated MCL 600.2918 | Removal was forcible/unlawful (kicked in door, property tossed, detergent poured) | Entry was peaceful or based on belief of abandonment; locksmith used when no response | Fact issue: accounts conflict; summary disposition inappropriate |
| Whether notice to quit was adequate to terminate month‑to‑month tenancy | Written 10‑day letter and oral 3‑day demand were insufficient; one month’s notice required | Owner informed occupant to vacate; tenant hadn’t paid rent months | Held: 10‑day/3‑day notices insufficient as matter of law; one‑month notice required, creating factual/legal issue on termination |
| Whether owner reasonably believed tenant abandoned under MCL 600.2918(3)(c) | Plaintiff stayed, paid utilities (DTE letters), and spoke with manager in Nov 2015 | Defendants relied on utility company reports and observed apparent abandonment | Fact issue: evidence supports both sides; diligent inquiry/good‑faith belief unresolved; summary disposition improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Boulton v. Fenton Twp, 272 Mich App 456 (trial court may sua sponte grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1))
- Deroshia v. Union Terminal Piers, 151 Mich App 715 (anti‑lockout statute eliminates self‑help and favors judicial process)
- Feister v. Bosack, 198 Mich App 19 (one month’s notice required to terminate month‑to‑month tenancy)
- Jeffrey v. Clinton Twp, 195 Mich App 260 (standard for injunctive relief; irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedy)
- Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich App 644 (injunction is equitable remedy tied to wrongful conduct)
- Wilson v. King, 298 Mich App 378 (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Ally Fin., Inc. v. State Treasurer, 317 Mich App 316 (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Aspen Enterprises, Ltd. v. Bray, 148 Mich App 9 (month‑to‑month tenancy is tenancy at will)
- Martin v. Murray, 309 Mich App 37 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for injunctive relief)
- Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 498 Mich 518 (abuse of discretion defined)