Mark Dushane v. Terrance R Fowle
332392
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- In 1989 parties stipulated to a consent judgment creating a non-exclusive 33-foot easement for ingress and egress commencing on the south right-of-way line of Highway M-50. The easement provides access to M-50.
- The parties litigated related claims in 2004–2005; plaintiff asserted adverse possession, and the court rejected that claim and reaffirmed the easement.
- In 2015 plaintiff filed a trespass action alleging defendants were trespassing on the approach to plaintiff’s driveway because the easement did not extend to the highway/approach.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under res judicata, arguing the issue of the easement boundaries (including extension to the highway) was or could have been resolved previously.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, holding res judicata barred the trespass claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars plaintiff's trespass claim | Dushane: prior rulings did not adjudicate trespass over the driveway approach; issue arose in 2012–2013 and was not previously litigated | Fowle: the trespass claim challenges the easement boundaries (whether it extends to the highway), which was or could have been decided in prior litigation | Res judicata bars the claim — prior actions decided the easement’s existence and scope; the trespass claim arises from same transaction and could have been raised earlier |
| Whether consent judgment from 1989 can have preclusive effect | Dushane: (implicit) consent judgment did not resolve the driveway approach question | Fowle: consent judgment establishes the easement and is preclusive; res judicata applies to consent judgments | Court: res judicata applies to consent judgments; prior settlement and rulings reaffirmed easement including access toward M-50 |
| Whether trial court erred in considering prior records instead of viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor | Dushane: trial court failed to view pleadings in the light most favorable to plaintiff | Fowle: court properly relied on prior rulings and record showing easement scope | Court: no error — reliance on prior adjudications and lower-court file was appropriate for res judicata analysis |
| Whether the same-transaction test was satisfied | Dushane: trespass occurred later and was not related in time, space, origin, or motivation to earlier suits | Fowle: the trespass claim challenges the same easement rights and thus arises from the same transaction | Court: same-transaction test met — claims are factually related and could have been litigated earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v Washington, 314 Mich. App. 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for summary disposition and res judicata application)
- Adair v Michigan, 470 Mich. 105 (Mich. 2004) (articulation of res judicata elements and same-transaction test)
- Ditmore v Michalik, 244 Mich. App. 569 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (res judicata applies to consent judgments; privity between title predecessors)
- Martino v Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 218 Mich. App. 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (res judicata bars issues that could, with reasonable diligence, have been raised earlier)