Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
LEE M. KHAN, a/k/a LEE M. KAHAN,1 Plaintiff-Appellant, v CITY OF FLINT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 293991 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 08-089357-CZ UNPUBLISHED December 7, 2010

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and METER and SHAPIRO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff owned a one-unit house that was damaged by fire. Plaintiff reached an agreement with the property's insurer about compensation but, before construction started, defendant demolished the property. Plaintiff's subsequent claim to the property's insurer was denied because the damage to the property was the result of a demolition and this type of damage was not covered under the policy. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights to due notice under the state and federal constitutions and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. After filing an answer to plaintiff's complaint and its affirmative defenses, defendant sent plaintiff a set of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production. When plaintiff failed to respond to the requests for admissions, defendant first sent a reminder letter and then filed a motion asking the court to deem as admitted the matters of those requests.2 The trial court granted this motion and found, among other things, that "[p]laintiff was aware that
1 2

Plaintiff's last name is spelled variously throughout the lower court record as Khan and Kahan.

Under MCR 2.312(B)(1), each matter as to which a request for admissions is made is deemed admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed files an answer or objection within 28 days.

-1-

[the property] was set for demolition before the demolition took place." The court later granted summary disposition in favor of defendant. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo both a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition, Gillie v Genesee Co Treasurer, 277 Mich App 333, 344; 745 NW2d 137 (2007), as well as issues of constitutional law. In re Carey, 241 Mich App 222, 226; 615 NW2d 742 (2000). We view all the pleadings and the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party when considering a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 437; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). III. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS3 We must first decide whether the defendant's employee's failures to properly read the registry and request a title search violated plaintiff's due process rights under the state and federal constitutions. "The federal and Michigan constitutions guarantee that persons may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Hanlon v Civil Service Comm, 253 Mich App 710, 722; 660 NW2d 74 (2002), citing US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1,

Download LEE M KHAN V CITY OF FLINT.pdf

Michigan Law