Stephen Kantos v. Leonard Major
329866
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Kantos owned a 38-foot “Party Cruiser” docked at defendants’ Wyandotte marina; defendants placed it in winter storage at L & M, which stripped and destroyed the boat, then claimed ownership over alleged nonpayment.
- Kantos sued the marina defendants (not L & M) for breach, conversion, and MCPA violations.
- During discovery defendants requested the original boat title; Kantos said the corrected original title was on the boat and thus unavailable, and produced a duplicate title and a 1997 title application instead.
- Defendants contended the produced documents did not describe the boat’s true dimensions and that the duplicate title appeared doctored; they moved to compel and sought dismissal as a sanction for failure to produce the original title.
- The circuit court dismissed Kantos’s complaint with prejudice and awarded monetary sanctions without holding the scheduled hearing or making findings on the record; the court also denied Kantos’s motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without on-the-record consideration of circumstances and alternative sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was a proper sanction for failure to produce original boat title | Kantos: failure was inadvertent/explained (corrected title was on the boat); dismissal was too drastic absent an order specifically requiring production | Defendants: Kantos failed to produce original title for over a year and produced suspect documents; dismissal appropriate to remedy discovery obstruction | Reversed — court abused discretion by dismissing without on-the-record analysis of circumstances or considering lesser sanctions |
| Whether trial court complied with required on-the-record analysis before dismissal | Kantos: court must consider alternatives and Dean factors on the record | Defendants: relied on Kantos’s failure to respond and served motion as basis for dismissal | Held: Court failed to apply or cite relevant rules or Dean factors and did not evaluate alternatives on the record |
| Whether Kantos’s explanation for nonproduction affected sanction choice | Kantos: offered plausible explanation (corrected title was on boat; duplicate showed prior error) | Defendants: explanation insufficient given alleged discrepancies and suspected doctoring | Held: Explanation must be considered; absence of such consideration made dismissal unreasonable |
| Whether error was harmless | Kantos: error was prejudicial because dismissal terminated claim without assessment | Defendants: dismissal supported by nonresponse to motion and long nonproduction | Held: Error not harmless — remand required for proper sanction analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Jilek v. Stockson (On Remand), 297 Mich. App. 663 (discovery-sanction review standard)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (trial courts’ inherent authority to sanction, including dismissal)
- Vicencio v. Ramirez, 211 Mich. App. 501 (dismissal is drastic and requires on-the-record consideration of alternatives)
- Bass v. Combs, 238 Mich. App. 16 (dismissal reserved for flagrant discovery refusal)
- Dean v. Tucker, 182 Mich. App. 27 (nonexhaustive list of factors courts should consider when imposing discovery sanctions)
- Houston v. Southwest Detroit Hosp., 166 Mich. App. 623 (trial court must provide enough record support to evaluate sanction's reasonableness)
- Kalamazoo Oil Co. v. Boerman, 242 Mich. App. 75 (sanction authority for discovery noncompliance)
- Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich. 618 (overruling limited aspects but cited regarding standards for appellate review)