Romeo C Lagonoy v. Samuel H Gun, 356629

Family dispute over ownership of a Waterford house: alleged earlier quitclaim deeds were lost and Genoveva Hidalgo sought a recorded deed; plaintiff Romeo C. Lagonoy (an attorney and family member) sued Hamili on Genoveva’s behalf; that action was voluntarily dismissed when proof of the prior deed was unavailable.
On March 28, 2018 Wilfredo C. executed and recorded a quitclaim deed conveying his interest to his nephew; others suspected Lagonoy coerced or forged the deed.
On June 4, 2018 defendant attorney Samuel H. Gun sent an e-mail to Lagonoy (copied to his assistant) accusing him of fraud, forgery, unethical conduct, and implying referral to the Attorney Grievance Commission/State Bar.
Lagonoy sued defendants for civil extortion and defamation; defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10).
The trial court granted summary disposition: extortion dismissed under (C)(10) for failure to present admissible evidence of damages; defamation dismissed under (C)(8) and (C)(10) because the e-mail was not published to a third party outside a qualified privileged circle (it was copied to Gun’s assistant).
The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Civil extortion: whether Lagonoy produced evidence of damages to survive MCR 2.116(C)(10)	Lagonoy argued his complaint alleged mental anguish, reputational harm, and other general damages caused by defendants’ threats and statements	Defendants argued Lagonoy produced no admissible evidence establishing damages with reasonable certainty, so no genuine issue of material fact exists	Affirmed: summary disposition under (C)(10) was proper because plaintiff failed to present specific admissible facts proving damages
Defamation: whether the e-mail was published to a third party and thus actionable (and whether privilege applied)	Lagonoy argued the e-mail was published to a third party (Gun’s assistant Ellen Smith) and was not privileged	Defendants argued the e-mail to Gun’s assistant was within a common/qualified privilege (agent shared common interest), so no unprivileged publication to a third party	Affirmed: communication to Gun’s assistant fell within qualified privilege/agency and did not satisfy publication requirement; summary disposition under (C)(8) and (C)(10) proper

El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 504 Mich. 152 (summary disposition standards)
Gardner v. Wood, 429 Mich. 290 (recognizing civil cause of action based on extortion statute)
In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich. 367 (damages as element of tort actions)
Wright v. Genesee County, 504 Mich. 410 (tort damages and remedy principles)
Hannay v. Dep’t of Transp., 497 Mich. 45 (scope of recoverable tort damages)
Unibar Maintenance Servs., Inc. v. Saigh, 283 Mich. App. 609 (burden to prove damages with reasonable certainty)
Rose v. National Auction Group, 466 Mich. 453 (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid summary disposition)
Prysak v. R.L. Polk Co., 193 Mich. App. 1 (qualified privilege elements and overcoming privilege by actual malice)
Petersen Fin. LLC v. Twin Creeks, LLC, 318 Mich. App. 48 (publication to plaintiff’s agent is not publication to a third party)
Timmis v. Bennett, 352 Mich. 355 (qualified privilege for communications involving common interest)
Marlatte v. Weickgenant, 147 Mich. 266 (historical discussion of recovery in extortion contexts)