Susan R Fritz v. Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails
330049
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Sandy Pines is a member-owned campground; Fritz previously held a membership allowing use of Lot N-68.
- Fritz voluntarily transferred her membership to her daughter and son‑in‑law (the Bogarduses) before June 30, 2010, but retained a security interest only in a pontoon boat and trailer—not in the membership.
- The Bogarduses defaulted on dues and Sandy Pines terminated their membership; a 2012 attempt to transfer the membership back to Fritz (as trustee) was rejected by the board.
- Fritz sued alleging, among other claims, breach of contract and an equitable lien or other interest in the membership and personal property left on the lot; defendant offered to permit third‑party removal of the personal property but would not allow Fritz onto the premises.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, concluding Fritz failed to show a genuine issue of material fact about any interest in the membership and that the issue had been resolved in prior litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fritz has an enforceable interest (membership or equitable lien) in Lot N‑68/membership | Fritz claims a breach of contract and an equitable lien entitling her to return of the membership and personal property | Sandy Pines: Fritz voluntarily transferred membership, did not retain a security interest in membership, prior litigation resolved the issue | Court: No genuine factual dispute; res judicata/collateral estoppel bars relitigation; Fritz has no membership or lien interest |
| Whether factual issues remain to defeat summary disposition | Fritz asserts disputed facts (e.g., alleged perfected lien) exist | Sandy Pines and trial court: Fritz points only to her own assertions and no supporting documents; prior record controls | Court: No significant dispute of material fact; summary disposition proper |
| Whether prior litigation precludes current claims | Fritz attempts to relitigate membership rights and related issues | Sandy Pines: Prior case decided the membership issue on the merits and the matters could have been litigated then | Court: Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply; prior decision bars this action |
| Remedy for personal property left on the site | Fritz seeks return of personal property along with membership rights | Sandy Pines is willing to allow third‑party removal but not Fritz herself | Court did not award membership and noted defendant’s offer regarding removal; summary disposition stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Chestonia Twp v Star Twp, 266 Mich. App. 423 (res judicata bars subsequent action when essential facts are identical)
- Peterson Novelties, Inc. v City of Berkley, 259 Mich. App. 1 (elements and scope of res judicata)
- Baraga County v State Tax Comm, 466 Mich. 264 (res judicata requirements under Michigan law)
- Kosiel v Arrow Liquors Corp, 446 Mich. 374 (res judicata principles)
- Dart v Dart, 460 Mich. 573 (res judicata bars claims arising from same transaction that could have been litigated)
- Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich. 679 (collateral estoppel bars relitigation of resolved factual issues)