Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JANET WILKINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v BETTY WYGANT, Defendant/Cross-DefendantAppellee, and BRAD MONROE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, and CHOICE FEDERAL MORTGAGE, INC, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2006

No. 255791 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 02-011550-CP

Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Bandstra and Markey, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants arising out of her purchase of a mobile home. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Plaintiff Janet Wilkinson filed suit against defendants Betty Wygant, Brad Monroe1, and Choice Federal Mortgage, Inc, alleging claims of fraud, violation of the Michigan Consumer

Monroe died during the course of the proceedings. The stipulation and order of dismissal regarding Monroe's cross-claim against defendant Wygant was the final order from which plaintiff now appeals. MCL 7.203(A)(1); 7.202(6)(a)(i).

1

-1-


Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq.2, and rescission. Plaintiff also alleged a conversion claim against Wygant and a claimed violation of the mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers lending act, MCL 445.1651 et seq., against Choice Federal. We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp, 259 Mich App 315, 324; 675 NW2d 271 (2003). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Id. In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact, and the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Here, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, finding that the proofs established that the parties engaged in a scheme involving various misrepresentations to enable plaintiff to obtain financing to purchase a mobile home. The trial court found that, because there was no factual dispute that plaintiff knowingly participated in and benefited from the scheme, dismissal of her claims of fraud, violation of the MCPA, conversion, and violation of the mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers lending act was proper. We disagree. In making its decision, the trial court relied exclusively on the doctrine of wrongfulconduct to support its finding that plaintiff's participation with defendants in a fraudulent scheme to obtain financing to purchase a mobile home barred her claims against defendants. Our Supreme Court has explained that the "wrongful-conduct rule" is comprised of two common law maxims: [A] person cannot maintain an action if, in order to establish his cause of action, he must rely, in whole or in part, on an illegal or immoral act or transaction to which he is a party. [1A CJS, Actions,

Download JANET WILKINSON V BETTY WYGANT.pdf

Michigan Law