Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

LAWRENCE LEE HUNT and JORDAN JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v ERIC A. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED June 14, 2012

No. 304563 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2009-101249-CD

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and BOONSTRA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Lawrence Lee Hunt owned a boat. He sold the boat to his cousin, Janis Jones, for $10,000 paid in full. After Janis's ex-boyfriend, defendant Eric A. Adams, secured a $318,345.06 judgment against her in connection with a land deal gone wrong, Adams directed a court officer to seize the boat in partial satisfaction of the judgment.1 Adams then personally purchased the boat at the sheriff's sale. In the meantime, however, Janis had sold the boat to her son, plaintiff Jordan Jones, for $12,000. Plaintiffs Hunt and Jordan filed this action seeking return of the boat, contending that Janis never really owned it in the first place because she had neglected to procure a certificate of title from the Secretary of State. We must now reverse the trial court's order summarily dismissing plaintiffs' claims. While we agree with Adams that Janis likely failed to secure a certificate of title to hide this asset, we are bound by the watercraft transfer and certificate of title act (WTCTA), MCL 324.80301 et seq., to determine that Janis did not own the boat. Therefore, Adams could not seize the boat to satisfy the judgment. Moreover, plaintiffs created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the propriety of the sheriff's sale, the invalidation of which would permit a remedy against Adams. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

A trial court ruled in Adams favor in Adams v Wilbur D. Chard Trust, Oakland Circuit Court No. 2005-069363-CK. Adams and Janis each filed several applications and claims of appeal during that proceeding, all of which were dismissed by stipulation or involuntarily. See Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 271005, 279967, 282384, 282386, 282884, 282905, 292390, and 298099.

1

-1-

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Coblentz v Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). "A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint." In evaluating such a motion, a court considers the entire record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, including affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004) (internal citations omitted).] This Court also reviews de novo the interpretation and application of statutes. Gilliam v Hi

Download LAWRENCE LEE HUNT V ERIC A ADAMS.pdf

Michigan Law