Lucretia D Holliday v. Christopher Mullett
327892
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Holliday defaulted on her mortgage; Wells Fargo purchased the property at sheriff’s sale and initiated district-court summary eviction proceedings.
- Wells Fargo later quitclaimed the property to Vantium R.E.O., which later quitclaimed to Strategic Realty; the deed from Vantium to Strategic was drafted by defendant attorney Mullett.
- Defendants (attorneys representing Wells Fargo) continued prosecuting the eviction; at a district-court hearing Mullett stated Vantium (and later Strategic) authorized continuation and paid legal bills.
- The district court ordered a writ of restitution; Holliday filed a separate suit alleging fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought a TRO, which the circuit court granted temporarily.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10); the circuit court granted (C)(10) dismissal, holding MCR 2.202(B) allowed the action to continue in Wells Fargo’s name and that Holliday’s tort claims failed as a matter of law.
- Holliday appealed pro se without citing legal authority; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the arguments abandoned or without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants committed fraud by continuing eviction after Wells Fargo transferred interest | Holliday: defendants misrepresented ownership and continued suit in Wells Fargo’s name to her detriment | Defendants: MCR 2.202(B) permits continuation in original party’s name; they disclosed transfers and had authorization to proceed | No fraud; summary disposition affirmed — no false, material misrepresentation or reliance shown |
| Whether defendants’ conduct supports intentional infliction of emotional distress | Holliday: continued prosecution caused severe emotional distress and physical injuries | Defendants: conduct was lawful litigation conduct, not extreme or outrageous | Claim fails as a matter of law — litigation to resolve dispute not “extreme and outrageous” |
| Whether defendants owed Holliday a legal duty (negligence/breach) | Holliday: defendants’ actions breached a duty and caused physical harm | Defendants: attorneys owe duties to their clients, not adversaries; no duty to Holliday | No duty established; claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether summary disposition was premature because discovery was incomplete | Holliday: dismissal was premature without discovery | Defendants: record showed no genuine issue of material fact; MCR 2.202(B) dispositive | Court treated argument as abandoned and/or without merit; (C)(10) dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (summary-judgment/genuine-issue standard)
- Oliver v. Smith, 269 Mich App 560 (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Barclae v. Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 (definition of real party in interest)
- Eller v. Metro Indus. Contracting, Inc., 261 Mich App 569 (MCR 2.202(B) allows action to continue without substitution)
- Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 Carpentry, 281 Mich App 330 (same; substitution not required)
- Roberts v. Saffell, 280 Mich App 397 (elements of fraud require false, material representation and reliance)
- Graham v. Ford, 237 Mich App 670 (elements and high threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Early Detection Center v. New York Life Ins. Co., 157 Mich App 618 (resorting to courts is appropriate conduct)
- Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich 1 (attorneys do not owe duty of care to opposing parties)