Stuart D Roeder v. Global Express Services LLC
330874
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Stuart Roeder leased a commercial building to Global Express (Raad and Akkari) for one year starting December 15, 2012, with an option to extend nine additional one-year terms by written notice at least 60 days before expiration.
- Global Express alleged Roeder misrepresented the building’s fitness for a restaurant and performed costly renovations; Raad claims he mailed a January 7, 2013 letter to exercise the full nine-year extension option (ten-year occupancy total).
- Roeder denied receiving a timely renewal notice, notified Global Express on November 7, 2013 that the lease would expire December 15, 2013, and sued to regain possession; Global Express counterclaimed for breach of quiet enjoyment.
- During litigation Global Express missed multiple scheduling and discovery deadlines, produced a late/incomplete witness list, disobeyed an order to produce a laptop containing metadata for the renewal letter, and had an uncertified interpreter provided by the court for Akkari’s testimony.
- The bench trial court found Global Express did not timely send the January 7, 2013 renewal, denied damages cross-claims, awarded possession to Roeder, and awarded Roeder one-half of his attorney fees as contract damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roeder) | Defendant's Argument (Global Express) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to extend witness-disclosure deadline | Roeder argued schedule should be enforced | Global Express said it needed more time (deposed Roeder) and later retained new counsel | Court did not abuse discretion; GE failed to justify extension or press the request at hearing |
| Whether witnesses should be excluded for late disclosure | Roeder sought exclusion due to no timely witness lists | Global Express claimed discovery responses sufficed and lateness was not willful | Exclusion upheld as reasonable sanction under Duray/Dean factors; prejudice to Roeder supported exclusion |
| Whether documentary evidence was improperly excluded | Roeder moved to exclude late exhibits; court reserved ruling | Global Express alleges exhibits were unfairly barred | No identified exhibit was excluded on appeal; no reversible error shown |
| Whether interpreter error required new trial | Roeder noted clerk provided interpreter; court used available interpreter | GE argued interpreter was not certified and translations were imperfect, seeking retrial | Appointment error by court occurred but was harmless—substance was conveyed; no prejudice |
| Whether adverse inference/spoliation instruction was improperly applied for failure to produce laptop | Roeder sought laptop; court ordered production; GE failed to produce | GE argued court made an adverse presumption about metadata showing letter was drafted later | Court did not rely on a spoliation inference; based finding on credibility, contemporaneous communications, and physical evidence (folded plan) |
| Whether lease was renewed by January 2013 letter | Roeder denied receiving timely notice; argued lease expired Dec 15, 2013 | GE argued it sent timely notice and exercised full 10-year term to protect investment | Trial court’s factual finding that letter was not mailed was not clearly erroneous; lease not renewed |
| Whether attorney fees may be awarded under lease despite alleged landlord breach | GE argued Roeder breached lease (quiet enjoyment) so cannot enforce fee clause | Roeder argued he brought action to enforce lease after GE failed to timely renew | Court enforced contractual fee-shifting; GE’s alleged breach did not excuse fee obligation because it did not prevent GE’s performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Decker v. Trux R Us, Inc., 307 Mich. App. 472 (discussing abuse of discretion standard for scheduling order modifications)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (abuse of discretion review explained)
- Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143 (sanctions for failure to timely disclose witnesses)
- Dean v. Tucker, 182 Mich. App. 27 (factors for discovery sanctioning analysis)
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457 (de novo review of contract interpretation)
- Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459 (contract interpretation principles)
- Haliw v. Sterling Heights, 471 Mich. 700 (American rule re: attorney fees)
- Pransky v. Falcon Group, Inc., 311 Mich. App. 164 (contractual fee-shifting treated as damages)
- Able Demolition, Inc. v. Pontiac, 275 Mich. App. 577 (party who first commits substantial breach cannot always recover)
- Baith v. Knapp-Stiles, Inc., 380 Mich. 119 (when prior breach prevents recovery; complete failure of consideration standard)