Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

GENERAL MOTORS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v COMERICA BANK, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 21, 2010

No. 291236 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-618803-CZ

Before: DONOFRIO, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FITZGERALD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant Comerica Bank ("Comerica") appeals as of right from a judgment of $744,255 entered in favor of plaintiff General Motors, L.L.C. ("GM"), after the trial court granted GM's motion for partial summary disposition on its unjust enrichment claim. Because neither the statute of limitations barred nor the Uniform Commercial Code displaced GM's claim for unjust enrichment, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND This appeal involves the final two of five overpayments that GM made to a supplier, HyLift, L.L.C. ("Hy-Lift"). GM made each payment by electronic transfer into a Comerica account maintained by Hy-Lift, but which was also used as collateral for Comerica's revolving credit loan to Hy-Lift. GM made the two overpayments at issue in this appeal on June 28, 2000. Comerica applied the overpayments to pay down Hy-Lift's revolving credit loan. Comerica identified the overpayments during an audit of Hy-Lift's collateral account in August 2000, but continued to consider the overpayments as having paid down Hy-Lift's revolving credit loan when determining the amount that Hy-Lift could borrow. In 2002, Hy-Lift became entrenched in a federal bankruptcy proceeding. In December 2004, GM filed an action against Comerica, Hy-Lift, and others in connection with the overpayments, but that case was administratively closed, without prejudice, because of a stay issued in the bankruptcy proceeding. GM later filed this action in June 2006. GM's complaint against Comerica sought to recover the overpayments based on theories of unjust enrichment and constructive trust. Comerica claimed that it was entitled to retain the overpayments as a secured creditor of Hy-Lift. The parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition in 2007. In relevant part, the trial court denied Comerica's motion, which it brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (statute of limitations) and (10) (no genuine issue of material fact.) The trial court granted GM's 1

motion for partial summary disposition, which was based on the two June 28, 2000, overpayments, and awarded GM judgment in the amount of $744,255. Following further motions, including a "renewed" motion for summary disposition brought by Comerica with respect to the June 28, 2000, overpayments, which the trial court treated as a motion for reconsideration and then denied, the trial court entered a final judgment of $744,255 in favor of GM. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a trial court's summary disposition ruling de novo. Barnard Mfg Co v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 369; 775 NW2d 618 (2009). Summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when a claim is barred by a statute of limitations. In reviewing such a motion, the contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless contracted by documentary evidence. RDM Holdings, Ltd v Continental Plastics Co, 281 Mich App 678, 687; 762 NW2d 529 (2008). Where the facts are not disputed, whether a cause of action is barred by the applicable limitations period is a question of law. Joliet v Pitoniak, 475 Mich 30, 35; 715 NW2d 60 (2006). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim based on substantively admissible evidence. MCR 2.116(G)(6); Adair v Mich, 470 Mich 105, 120; 680 NW2d 386 (2004); Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120-121; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Healing Place at North Oakland Med Ctr v Allstate Ins Co, 277 Mich App 51, 56; 744 NW2d 174 (2007). "There is a genuine issue of material fact when reasonable minds could differ on an issue after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419, 425; 751 NW2d 8 (2008). This Court also reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Healing Place at North Oakland Med Ctr, 277 Mich App at 55. This Court begins the analysis with the specific statutory language at issue. Id. at 58. If there is no ambiguity, the statute is applied as written. Id. at 59. A statute is ambiguous if a provision irreconcilably conflicts with another provision or is equally susceptible to more than one meaning. Kmart Mich Prop Servs, LLC v Dep't of Treasury, 283 Mich App 647, 650; 770 NW2d 915 (2009). Equity cases are also reviewed de novo on the record. Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 44; ___ NW2d ___ (2010); Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 193; 729 NW2d 898 (2006). The granting of equitable relief to a party is ordinarily a matter of grace. Tkachik, 487 Mich at 45. "Equity allows `complete justice' to be done in a case by `adapt[ing] its judgment[s] to the special circumstances of the case.'" Id. at 46, quoting 27A Am Jur 2d, Equity,

Download GENERAL MOTORS LLC V COMERICA BANK.pdf

Michigan Law