Ronald L Nelson v. Renner Family Living Trust
332948
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Ronald and Beverly Nelson bought property from Duane and Mary Renner (as trustees) via real-estate brokers Griffin and Schmidt; plaintiffs later alleged boundary and access misrepresentations (including use of a shared pier).
- The land occupied by the northern neighbor (CORA) is U.S. trust land for several tribes; the United States was added, removed the case to federal court, and that court dismissed claims implicating federal title but remanded remaining claims to state court.
- Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserted multiple claims against the Renners and real-estate defendants (contract, fraudulent/innocent misrepresentation, silent fraud, declaratory relief, slander of title, trespass).
- Over six years the trial court heard numerous motions, granted CORA summary disposition on sovereign-immunity grounds, then dismissed the remaining state-court claims without prejudice, stating it wanted to “narrow the issues” and “erase the slate.”
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal without prejudice as having no legal basis; the Renners and real-estate defendants cross-appealed seeking dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had legal basis to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint without prejudice | Dismissal lacked legal basis; court improperly declined to decide pending substantive motions | (Cross-appellants) trial court should have dismissed with prejudice | Reversed: dismissal without prejudice was an abuse of discretion because court abdicated duty to decide pending motions; remanded for consideration of those motions |
| Whether trial court may control docket to manage cases | Court has inherent docket-control authority but must act within law | Defendants relied on court’s authority to manage proceedings | Court reaffirmed inherent authority exists but found abuse here when used to avoid deciding motions |
| Effect of federal dismissal re: sovereign immunity for U.S. trust land | Plaintiffs accept federal dismissal on immunity grounds and proceed on remaining state claims | CORA asserted sovereign immunity and obtained summary disposition | Trial court’s grant of summary disposition to CORA on immunity was not challenged on appeal by plaintiffs and stands |
| Whether appellate court should consider merits of unresolved motions | Plaintiffs sought reversal to have merits decided on remand | Defendants sought affirmance (or dismissal with prejudice) | Appellate court declined to rule on merits and remanded for trial court to decide the pending substantive motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (court’s inherent authority to manage docket)
- Brenner v Kolk, 226 Mich App 149 (standard on abuse of discretion for inherent power exercise)
- Baynesan v Wayne State Univ, 316 Mich App 643 (abuse of discretion and range of principled outcomes)
- Burns v Detroit (On Remand), 253 Mich App 608 (appellate role is error correction; will not decide merits if trial court did not)