Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

CARL EVANGELISTA and LINDA EVANGELISTA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SHANNON EVANGELISTA, Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee, v RONALD EVANGELISTA, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2011

No. 297575 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 09-100859-CK

Before: OWENS, P.J., and O'CONNELL and METER, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs Carl and Linda Evangelista and third-party defendant Ronald Evangelista appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part Ronald's motion for summary disposition. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Defendant Shannon Evangelista and Ronald executed a promissory note to plaintiffs, who are Ronald's parents; it held Shannon and Ronald jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs for the repayment of a loan for $158,000, secured by real property on which Shannon and Ronald were building a home. At the time of the loan, Shannon and Ronald were married, but they subsequently divorced. Plaintiffs and Ronald argue that plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment against Shannon for the full amount of the promissory-note debt. We agree. We review the grant or denial of summary disposition de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Ronald brought his motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). "In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under [MCR 2.116(C)(10)], a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Where the proffered -1-

evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Maiden, 461 Mich at 120. "A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are `so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.'" Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 (citations omitted). Because Shannon and Ronald were jointly and severally liable for the debt by the terms of the promissory note, plaintiffs could proceed against Shannon severally for the full amount of the promissory-note debt. See 12 Am Jur 2d, Bills and Notes,

Download CARL EVANGELISTA V SHANNON EVANGELISTA.pdf

Michigan Law