Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ROBERT A. MORSE and FRANCES A. MORSE, d/b/a R-LAND, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v FIRST OF AMERICA BANK-MICHIGAN, f/k/a FIRST OF AMERICA BANK-NORTHERN MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED August 1, 2000

No. 212197 Grand Traverse Circuit Court LC No. 97-016492-CZ

ROBERT A. MORSE and FRANCES A. MORSE, d/b/a R-LAND, INC., Plaintiffs, v FIRST OF AMERICA BANK-MICHIGAN, f/k/a FIRST OF AMERICA BANK-NORTHERN MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee, and PETER J. ZIRNHELT, Appellant. No. 215324 Grand Traverse Circuit Court LC No. 97-016492-CZ

Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and Hoekstra, JJ.

-1

PER CURIAM. In Docket No. 212197, plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting defendant summary disposition on res judicata grounds, MCR 2.116(C)(7), and imposing sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorney under MCR 2.114(E). In Docket No. 215324, plaintiffs' attorney appeals by leave granted the imposition of sanctions against him. We affirm. In a previous action against several defendants to quiet title, plaintiffs named defendant mortgage holder, First of America Bank (defendant), as required by MCL 600.2932; MSA 27A.2932, to give defendant notice of the quiet title action involving property in which defendant had an interest. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition and plaintiffs' response requested leave to amend their complaint to add a claim that defendant's secured interest in the property is limited to the face amount of the mortgage. Defendant's reply brief argued the proposed amendment would be futile. The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, adopting its arguments, and dismissed plaintiffs' claim with prejudice. When defendant later sought to foreclose on the property, plaintiffs filed a second suit against defendant, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the amount of the lien, and a temporary restraining order to block the foreclosure. The circuit court denied the restraining order, granted defendant summary disposition on res judicata grounds, and ordered plaintiffs, and their counsel, to pay sanctions. This appeal ensued. I Plaintiffs first contend that the circuit court erred in granting defendant summary disposition on the basis of res judicata because the subject matter of the two actions was not the same and there was no judgment on the merits in the first action. We disagree. The applicability of res judicata to bar a subsequent suit is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 379; 596 NW2d 153 (1999). The term "res judicata" is used to refer to preclusion (or former adjudication) broadly, including both "issue preclusion" and "claim preclusion," see Wright, The Law of Federal Courts,

Download ROBERT A MORSE V FIRST OF AMERICA BANK.pdf

Michigan Law