Rolondo Campbell v. U-Win Properties LLC
333429
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Rolondo Campbell (RC) defaulted on a land contract; district court entered default judgment and issued a writ of restitution/eviction. RC filed bankruptcy, the stay was later lifted, and a second writ and eviction order issued October 15, 2014.
- RC appealed to circuit court; the appeal was dismissed November 21, 2014 for failure to comply with court rules after a notice of intent to dismiss issued November 10, 2014 (14-day cure period). RC contends he was evicted November 24, 2014, one day before the 14-day period expired.
- Plaintiffs alleged unlawful/forcible eviction and fraud against defendants U-Win Properties, Susan Boggs, and defense counsel Linnell & Associates for allegedly facilitating eviction despite a stay or lack of proper reissuance of writ.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing they acted under a valid district-court eviction order that had not been reversed or vacated and therefore eviction was lawful; Linnell argued it merely communicated the dismissal and followed court orders.
- The circuit court granted summary disposition for defendants, concluding defendants relied on a valid writ and there was no rational basis for the case to continue. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the eviction unlawful under MCL 600.2918 because the stay from RC’s appeal remained in effect? | RC: stay was not lifted; notice-of-intent cure period meant dismissal was not final until 14 days elapsed, so eviction (Nov 24) was premature. | Defendants: appeal dismissal vested jurisdiction back in district court; the stay ended on dismissal; eviction order remained valid and executable. | Held: Dismissal ended the stay and revived the district-court eviction order; eviction was pursuant to a valid court order and lawful. |
| Did defendants need to obtain a reissued writ after the circuit-court dismissal before executing eviction? | Plaintiffs: reissuance required because stay had been in place and dismissal process left procedural gaps. | Defendants: no reissuance required when the original order/writ was not overturned or vacated. | Held: No reissuance required; existing order remained effective unless reversed or vacated. |
| Can plaintiffs maintain an independent fraud action (fraud on the court) based on defendants’ communications about dismissal? | Plaintiffs: Linnell sent facsimile and made representations to district court leading to ex parte action and eviction. | Defendants: communications accurately reflected the dismissal; no material misrepresentation or concealment occurred. | Held: No fraud on the court; defendants’ communications were consistent with the dismissal and did not conceal or misrepresent material facts. |
| Were plaintiffs entitled to damages or relief where eviction followed court order? | Plaintiffs: suffered damages from allegedly improper eviction and have standing to sue for unlawful method of eviction. | Defendants: any damages resulted from court action; plaintiffs are improperly collaterally attacking a valid court order and lack a basis for damages. | Held: Plaintiffs’ claims were effectively a collateral attack on a valid district-court order; summary disposition for defendants affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 491 Mich 200 (overview of summary-disposition standards)
- Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124 (MCR 2.116(C)(8) pleading sufficiency standard)
- Sewell v Clean Cut Mgmt, Inc, 463 Mich 569 (district-court judgment and writ conclusive on narrow eviction issue)
- Johnson v White, 261 Mich App 332 (party cannot ignore court order because they believe it is wrong)
- Marley v Matley, 242 Mich App 100 (definition of fraud on the court)
- Koontz v Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304 (statutory interpretation principles)