Richard Slater v. Mark Cueny, 355914

Background

Slaters installed landscaping along what they and prior owners (the Clines) treated as the lot line for ~20 years; Clines did not object. After defendants (the Cuenys) purchased the neighbor lot in 2015 they complained and litigation followed.
At bench trial the circuit court found for the Slaters on acquiescence and ordered the parties to record amended deeds reflecting the boundary shown by the "black line" on two 1995 Plot Plans, but the judgment also adopted plaintiffs’ detailed factual description of a boundary that diverged from the straight plat line.
Post-judgment the parties disputed precisely where the new boundary ran; the court appointed a special master and surveyor whose survey produced a slightly angled/segmented line intended to implement the court’s judgment.
On appeal (Slater I) this Court vacated the trial court’s earlier order that had approved a curved line, finding the trial court had substantively altered its judgment sua sponte without a motion and without giving defendants adequate notice/rehearing. The case was remanded.
On remand the trial court gave notice, required briefing, held hearings, and again adopted the special master’s/surveyor’s line as a clarification of its original judgment. Defendants appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Slater's Argument	Cueny's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could raise/decide the boundary issue sua sponte on remand without violating due process	The court satisfied due process on remand by giving notice, taking briefs, holding hearings, and thus could decide/clarify the judgment	Trial court lacked authority to modify judgment sua sponte; defendants were entitled to relief under MCR 2.612 and People v Comer	Court: A trial court may raise an issue sua sponte but must give notice and opportunity to be heard; on remand the court complied and did not violate due process
Whether the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine barred the trial court from clarifying/reinstating the special master’s boundary line	The doctrine did not apply because the original judgment was ambiguous and the appellate panel in Slater I vacated the trial court order rather than reinstating the straight plat line	Law‑of‑the‑case requires adherence to appellate rulings; defendants urge reinstatement of straight Plot Plan line	Court: Law‑of‑the‑case did not preclude clarification because record and special master’s materials on remand clarified ambiguity; Slater I vacated the order and remanded rather than mandating a straight‑line result
Whether the trial court properly interpreted/clarified its ambiguous judgment and adopt the special master’s survey to effectuate acquiescence relief	The court correctly construed an ambiguous judgment to give effect to its acquiescence ruling and to effectuate relief (trial court has inherent authority to enforce/clarify judgments)	Adopting the special master’s line effectively changed parties’ substantive rights and improperly modified the judgment	Court: Trial court may interpret and clarify an ambiguous judgment to make it reasonable, effective, and enforceable; here the clarification implemented the acquiescence ruling and was proper
Whether MCR 2.612 or People v Comer barred the court’s actions on remand	MCR 2.612 does not preclude the court’s inherent authority to clarify/enforce its judgment after giving process; Comer (criminal rule) is not controlling	Defendants relied on Comer and MCR 2.612 to argue the trial court could not correct the judgment without a party motion	Court: Comer (criminal) is distinguishable; MCR 2.612 does not contain Comer’s criminal‑rule limitation; clarification after notice/hearing was permissible

Key Cases Cited

Schumacher v. Dep’t of Nat’l Res., 275 Mich App 121 (review de novo whether trial court followed appellate ruling)
Ashker ex rel. Estate of Ashker v. Ford Motor Co., 245 Mich App 9 (law‑of‑the‑case is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Al‑Maliki v. LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483 (due process satisfied by opportunity for rehearing where court raised issue sua sponte)
Driver v. Hanley, 226 Mich App 558 (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine explained)
Grace v. Grace, 253 Mich App 357 (law‑of‑the‑case discretionary; exceptions discussed)
Marysville v. Pate, Hirn & Bogue, Inc., 196 Mich App 32 (doctrine applies only to questions necessary to prior decision)
Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich 791 (trial court may clarify ambiguous judgment)
In re Moroun, 295 Mich App 312 (trial court’s inherent and statutory authority to enforce orders)
Weathervane Window, Inc. v. White Lake Const. Co., 192 Mich App 316 (court has discretion in means to enforce its orders)
Greene v. Greene, 357 Mich 196 (equitable authority to interpret and supplement decrees to effectuate purpose)
Neville v. Neville, 295 Mich App 460 (court may interpret and clarify agreement absent substantive rights change)
People v. Comer, 500 Mich 278 (criminal‑procedure limitation on sua sponte correction discussed; distinguished here)
AFT v. State, 334 Mich App 215 (judgment terms may be interpreted like contracts)