Daniel Sutter v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    DANIEL SUTTER and SHERYL SUTTER,                                   UNPUBLISHED
    May 24, 2016
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v                                                                  No. 320704
    Ingham Circuit Court
    OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,                                         LC No. 13-000642-CZ
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ON REMAND
    Before: OWENS, P.J., and JANSEN and MURRAY, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    This case returns to us on order of our Supreme Court, which, in lieu of granting leave to
    appeal, vacated our prior judgment in the case and remanded the case to this Court “to reconsider
    whether the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a legally cognizable claim of statutory conversion under
    MCL 600.2919a(1)(a).”1 On further consideration of the issue, we again conclude that plaintiffs’
    complaint stated legally cognizable claims regarding common-law conversion, declaratory relief,
    and injunctive relief, but failed to state a legally cognizable claim of statutory conversion. We
    further conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the
    default or in denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. Accordingly, we affirm in
    part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT
    On further consideration of the issue, we again conclude that plaintiffs pleaded legally
    cognizable claims regarding common-law conversion, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief,
    but plaintiffs failed to plead a legally cognizable claim of statutory conversion.
    “We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside a
    default and whether to grant a default judgment.” Huntington Nat’l Bank v Ristich, 
    292 Mich 1
       Sutter v Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 
    499 Mich 874
     (2016).
    -1-
    App 376, 383; 808 NW2d 511 (2011). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it reaches a
    decision that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” 
    Id.
    In determining whether the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the
    default, we first consider whether plaintiffs pleaded legally cognizable claims in their complaint.
    “It is an established principle of Michigan law that a default settles the question of liability as to
    well-pleaded allegations and precludes the defaulting party from litigating that issue.” Wood v
    Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 
    413 Mich 573
    , 578; 321 NW2d 653 (1982) (emphasis added). “The
    entry of a default does not operate as an admission that the complaint states a cause of action.”
    State ex rel Saginaw Prosecuting Attorney v Bobenal Investments, Inc, 
    111 Mich App 16
    , 22;
    314 NW2d 512 (1981). “Manifest injustice would result if a default was not set aside where the
    plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because a complaint that fails to
    state a cause of action cannot support a judgment.” Lindsley v Burke, 
    189 Mich App 700
    , 702-
    703; 474 NW2d 158 (1991).
    The complaint must state sufficient facts to put the defendant on notice of the claims
    against which it must defend. Kincaid v Cardwell, 
    300 Mich App 513
    , 529; 834 NW2d 122
    (2013). MCR 2.111(B)(1) provides that a complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts,
    without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific
    allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the
    adverse party is called on to defend[.]” The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted the following
    principles in determining whether a pleading is sufficient:
    The plaintiff’s declaration or complaint should contain a direct and
    positive averment of all the ultimate facts, as distinguished from evidentiary facts,
    necessary to state a cause of action in the plaintiff’s favor and against the
    defendant, followed by a demand or prayer for the relief to which the plaintiff
    claims to be entitled. The probative facts necessary to prove such ultimate facts
    should not be pleaded. Neither is it necessary for him to plead facts of which the
    court takes judicial notice, and consequently, he is not required to plead a public
    statute, when his cause of action is based thereon, although when his action is
    based upon a private statute or a municipal ordinance or the law of another state,
    such laws and ordinances must be pleaded as any other fact. The facts making up
    the cause of action should be set forth in their logical order, in ordinary and
    concise language, but with the requisite degree of certainty required by general
    rules of pleading. Every material fact essential to the existence of the plaintiff’s
    cause of action, and which he must prove to sustain his right of recovery, must be
    averred, in order to let in proof thereof. Every issue must be founded upon some
    certain point, so that the parties may come prepared with their evidence and not
    be taken by surprise, and the jury may not be misled by the introduction of
    various matters.
    Notwithstanding changes that have been introduced by modern systems of
    pleading, it still remains the duty of the plaintiff to state his cause of action in his
    declaration, complaint, or petition, and the right of the defendant to be apprised
    thereby of the facts which are believed to constitute the plaintiff’s cause of action.
    The plaintiff’s allegation must be such, if proved as laid, as to show as a matter of
    -2-
    law the essential elements of a cause of action in his favor, and a cause of action
    should be so stated that the court may determine its character as ex contractu or ex
    delicto, although it is not necessary for the plaintiff in so many words to state the
    character of his action as ex delicto or ex contractu. On the other hand, a pleading
    properly drawn should contain no further allegations than thus indicated. It is not
    required that the plaintiff aver any fact which is not necessary to his right. He is
    not required to state the circumstances tending to prove the facts alleged,—the
    character of the evidence upon which he intends to rely,—or to anticipate matters
    of defense which the defendant may possibly set up. In general, the complaint or
    petition is sufficient if its allegations state facts upon which the plaintiff relies for
    a recovery, and if it adequately advises the defendant of the charge so as to enable
    him to prepare his defense. [Steed v Covey, 
    355 Mich 504
    , 510-511; 94 NW2d
    864 (1959) (emphasis added), quoting 41 Am Jur, Pleading, § 77, pp 343-345
    (quotation marks omitted).]
    A. CONVERSION CLAIMS
    Conversion is “any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal
    property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.” Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v
    Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc, 
    497 Mich 337
    , 346; 871 NW2d 136 (2015) (citations and
    quotation marks omitted). Conversion may occur when there is a temporary deprivation of
    personal property, such as when the plaintiff’s property is restored to him. Pamar Enterprises,
    Inc v Huntington Banks of Mich, 
    228 Mich App 727
    , 734; 580 NW2d 11 (1998). A check is the
    personal property of the designated payee. 
    Id.
     Under MCL 440.3110(4), “an instrument made
    payable to two or more persons not alternatively, is payable to all of them and may be
    negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.” Id. at 733 (emphasis added). A check
    may be the subject of a conversion. See id. at 734. MCL 440.3420 provides, in part:
    (1) The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to
    instruments. An instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a
    negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes
    or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to
    enforce the instrument or receive payment. An action for conversion of an
    instrument may not be brought by (i) the issuer or acceptor of the instrument or
    (ii) a payee or endorsee who did not receive delivery of the instrument either
    directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.
    (2) In an action under subsection (1), the measure of liability is presumed
    to be the amount payable on the instrument, but recovery may not exceed the
    amount of the plaintiff’s interest in the instrument.
    We again conclude that plaintiffs’ complaint stated a legally cognizable claim of
    common-law conversion. According to plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant was assigned a forged
    mortgage on plaintiffs’ property. Defendant obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy on the
    property pursuant to the mortgage. A wind storm caused significant damage to plaintiffs’
    property, and plaintiffs filed a claim for damages with the insurance company. Meanwhile,
    plaintiffs informed defendant that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    -3-
    determined that the mortgage was void ab initio. The insurer subsequently issued a check for
    $16,860.68, made payable to defendant, plaintiffs, and plaintiffs’ attorneys. The insurance
    company mailed the check to defendant and informed plaintiffs that they needed to contact
    defendant to arrange the distribution of the funds. Plaintiffs’ attorneys contacted defendant to
    locate the payment and arrange to distribute the funds, but defendant failed to tell plaintiffs the
    location of the check or arrange to distribute the proceeds. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant did
    not have an insurable interest in the property because the mortgage was void ab initio.
    Plaintiffs alleged that (1) they are entitled to the $16,860.68, minus the $695 insurance
    premium, (2) defendant was not a holder in due course because defendant received notice of
    plaintiffs’ claim before the check was issued, (3) defendant “converted and/or attempted to
    convert” the check “contrary to MCL 600.2919a(1) and MCL 440.3420(1)” because defendant
    “wrongfully refused and failed to transfer possession of the American Security Insurance
    Company check to the Plaintiffs” and (4) defendant’s conduct caused plaintiffs to incur damages
    of $16,860.68, minus the $695 insurance premium. Plaintiffs requested that defendant endorse
    and transfer the check, and that the court award plaintiffs treble damages, prejudgment and
    postjudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs.
    A party that obtains a forged instrument does not have a right or interest in the property,
    even if the party obtained the forged instrument in good faith. See Special Prop VI, LLC v
    Woodruff, 
    273 Mich App 586
    , 591; 730 NW2d 753 (2007) (“ ‘[W]here a deed is forged, those
    innocently acquiring interests under the forged deed are in no better position as to title than if
    they had purchased with notice.’ ”) (citation omitted). Thus, according to plaintiffs’ complaint,
    defendant did not have an interest in the property because the mortgage was void ab initio. One
    must have an insurable interest before he can insure property. See Agricultural Ins Co v
    Montague, 
    38 Mich 548
    , 551 (1878). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged that
    defendant did not have an insurable interest in the property.
    Although plaintiffs alleged that defendant was a designated payee of the check, once
    defendant was informed that it had no interest in the property, it had clear proof that it was not
    entitled to the check. At this point, defendant was required to endorse the check and send the
    check to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim of common-law conversion in their
    complaint because the complaint alleged that defendant withheld the $16,860.68 check from
    plaintiffs after it learned that the mortgage was found to be void ab initio and after plaintiffs
    demanded the check. Although it is unclear from the complaint what defendant did with the
    check after receiving it, the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendant wrongfully withheld the
    check and refused to give it to plaintiffs on demand. Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently
    pleaded a claim of common-law conversion. See MCL 440.3420(1); Aroma Wines, 497 Mich at
    346.
    However, after reviewing the allegations contained in the complaint, we again conclude
    that plaintiffs failed to plead a legally cognizable claim of statutory conversion. MCL
    600.2919a, the statutory conversion statute, provides:
    (1) A person damaged as a result of either or both of the following may
    recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable
    attorney fees:
    -4-
    (a) Another person’s stealing or embezzling property or converting
    property to the other person’s own use.
    (b) Another person’s buying, receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding
    in the concealment of stolen, embezzled, or converted property when the person
    buying, receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of stolen,
    embezzled, or converted property knew that the property was stolen, embezzled,
    or converted.
    (2) The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other right or
    remedy the person may have at law or otherwise.
    “Conversion ‘to the other person’s own use’ requires a showing that the defendant employed the
    converted property for some purpose personal to the defendant’s interests, even if that purpose is
    not the object’s ordinarily intended purpose.” Aroma Wines, 497 Mich at 358-359.
    Plaintiffs alleged that defendant received the insurance check, “failed and otherwise
    refused to notify the Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys as to the location of the insurance payment,”
    and “failed to make arrangements for the distribution of the insurance check’s proceeds.”
    However, plaintiffs did not assert that defendant employed the check for some purpose personal
    to defendant’s interests. Instead, plaintiffs merely alleged that defendant converted or attempted
    to convert the check contrary to MCL 600.2919a(1) and MCL 440.3420(1) when defendant
    “wrongfully refused and failed to transfer possession” of the check. The complaint did not
    contain any allegation regarding the fact that defendant converted the check for its own use.
    Accordingly, we again conclude that plaintiffs failed to include allegations in their complaint
    necessary to reasonably inform defendant of the nature of the statutory conversion claim. See
    MCR 2.111(B)(1). Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint stated a legally cognizable claim of
    common-law conversion, but did not state a legally cognizable claim of statutory conversion.
    B. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    We again conclude that plaintiffs were entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief
    that they sought in their complaint based on the allegations in the complaint. With regard to their
    claim for declaratory relief, plaintiffs explained, as discussed above, that the mortgage assigned
    to defendant was forged and that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found
    the mortgage to be void ab initio. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant did not have an insurable
    interest in the property and that, consequently, it was not entitled to any of the insurance
    proceeds. Plaintiffs further alleged that they were entitled to the insurance proceeds, but that
    defendant refused to notify plaintiffs or their attorneys regarding the location of the check or
    arrange for the distribution of the proceeds. Plaintiffs requested that the court declare that
    plaintiffs are entitled to the proceeds of the insurance payment, minus the $695 insurance
    premium, and declare that plaintiffs are entitled to the proceeds of the second insurance payment
    that will be made once the repairs are made to the property. Plaintiffs cited MCR 2.605, which
    provides, in part, “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, a Michigan court of
    record may declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a
    declaratory judgment, whether or not other relief is or could be sought or granted.” MCR
    2.605(A)(1).
    -5-
    Plaintiffs also sought an injunction, pursuant to MCR 3.310, compelling defendant to
    release the insurance payment. The factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction is
    warranted include:
    (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the
    merits, (2) the danger that the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable
    harm if the injunction is not issued, (3) the risk that the party seeking the
    injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the
    opposing party would be by the granting of the relief, and (4) the harm to the
    public interest if the injunction is issued. [Davis v Detroit Fin Review Team, 
    296 Mich App 568
    , 613; 821 NW2d 896 (2012) (citations and quotation marks
    omitted).]
    With regard to a permanent injunction, this Court weights several factors in determining whether
    the trial court properly issued a permanent injunction, including:
    (a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the
    plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) any unreasonable delay by the
    plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e)
    the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to
    plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and (g)
    the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment. [Janet Travis,
    Inc v Preka Holdings, LLC, 
    306 Mich App 266
    , 274; 856 NW2d 206 (2014)
    (citation and quotation marks omitted).]
    “Courts balance the benefit of an injunction to a requesting plaintiff against the damage and
    inconvenience to the defendant, and will grant an injunction if doing so is most consistent with
    justice and equity.” Id. at 274-275.
    Plaintiffs requested that the court “effectuate and enforce the Court’s determination that
    the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive all of the proceeds of the insurance payment and the payment
    to be made after the repairs to the Plaintiffs’ home have been completed.” Plaintiffs incorporated
    their allegations with regard to their claim for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs asserted that they
    suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm because their home was severely damaged
    by the wind storm, their home was still in disrepair, and plaintiffs did not have the ability to pay
    for the repairs. Plaintiffs asserted that they were worried about the structural integrity of the
    home and their well-being in the home. Thus, plaintiffs requested that the court “[p]reliminarily
    and permanently enjoin the Defendant and compel it to release the insurance check to the
    Plaintiffs.” The court entered a default judgment declaring, in part, that plaintiffs were entitled
    to the $16,860.68 check, subtracting the $695 premium payment that defendant made, as well as
    an additional insurance payment of $4,482.69 once repairs were made on the property. We agree
    with the trial court that plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief based on the
    allegations in their complaint. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiffs pleaded legally cognizable
    claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the check and the future payment of
    $4,482.69.
    -6-
    II. ATTORNEY FEES
    Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees because the complaint did not plead a legally
    cognizable claim of statutory conversion. We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s
    decision to award attorney fees. Great Lakes Shores, Inc v Bartley, 
    311 Mich App 252
    , 254; 874
    NW2d 416 (2015). “As a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable from a losing party
    unless authorized by a statute, court rule, or other recognized exception.” Id. at 255. Because
    we conclude that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a claim of statutory conversion, we again
    conclude that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to MCL 600.2919a(1).
    Plaintiffs do not cite to another statute, court rule, or recognized exception that would permit
    them to recover attorney fees. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney fees.
    III. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
    We further conclude that the court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to set aside
    the default because defendant failed to establish good cause and a meritorious defense. MCR
    2.603(D) provides:
    (1) A motion to set aside a default or a default judgment, except when
    grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, shall be granted only if good
    cause is shown and an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense is filed.
    (2) Except as provided in MCR 2.612, if personal service was made on the
    party against whom the default was taken, the default, and default judgment if one
    has been entered, may be set aside only if the motion is filed
    (a) before entry of a default judgment, or
    (b) if a default judgment has been entered, within 21 days after the default
    judgment was entered.
    (3) In addition, the court may set aside a default and a default judgment in
    accordance with MCR 2.612.
    (4) An order setting aside the default or default judgment must be
    conditioned on the defaulted party paying the taxable costs incurred by the other
    party in reliance on the default or default judgment, except as prescribed in MCR
    2.625(D). The order may also impose other conditions the court deems proper,
    including a reasonable attorney fee.
    MCR 2.603(D)(1) requires a showing of good cause and the filing of an affidavit showing a
    meritorious defense. Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 
    461 Mich 219
    , 229; 600
    NW2d 638 (1999). “ ‘The good cause requirement . . . may be satisfied by demonstrating a
    procedural irregularity or defect or a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the
    requirements that led to the default judgment.’ ” Bullington v Corbell, 
    293 Mich App 549
    , 560-
    561; 809 NW2d 657 (2011) (citations omitted). “[M]anifest injustice is the result that would
    occur if a default were to be allowed to stand where a party has satisfied the ‘meritorious
    defense’ and ‘good cause’ requirements of the court rule.” Alken-Ziegler, 
    461 Mich at 233
    . “[I]f
    -7-
    a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of ‘good
    cause’ will be required than if the defense were weaker, in order to prevent a manifest injustice.”
    
    Id. at 233-234
    .
    This Court has clarified that the decision on this issue should be based on the totality of
    the circumstances. Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 
    280 Mich App 213
    , 237; 760 NW2d 674 (2008).
    This Court listed several factors for the trial court to consider with regard to good cause,
    including “whether the party completely failed to respond or simply missed the deadline to file;”
    “if the party simply missed the deadline to file, how long after the deadline the filing occurred;”
    “the duration between entry of the default judgment and the filing of the motion to set aside the
    judgment;” “whether there was defective process or notice;” “the circumstances behind the
    failure to file or file timely;” “whether the failure was knowing or intentional;” “the size of the
    judgment and the amount of costs due under MCR 2.603(D)(4);” “whether the default judgment
    results in an ongoing liability (as with paternity or child support);” and “if an insurer is involved,
    whether internal policies of the company were followed.” Id. at 238. With regard to a
    meritorious defense, the trial court should consider whether the affidavit includes evidence that
    “the plaintiff cannot prove or defendant can disprove an element of the claim or a statutory
    requirement;” “a ground for summary disposition exists under MCR 2.116(C)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7)
    or (8);” or “the plaintiff’s claim rests on evidence that is inadmissible.” Id. The court is only
    required to consider the relevant factors, and the court has the discretion to determine the weight
    of any particular factor. Id. at 239. The list of factors is not exclusive. Id.
    Defendant failed to show good cause to set aside the default. Defendant contended that
    there was good cause to set aside the default because it requested that its prior counsel, which
    represented defendant in other matters related to plaintiffs, defend it in this case. However,
    defendant learned that its prior counsel failed to respond to the complaint, and defendant
    immediately retained different counsel. Defendant’s current counsel immediately sent the check
    to plaintiffs, without endorsing the check, and requested that default be set aside. Defendant
    argued that the issue regarding its counsel constituted a minor error that did not warrant entry of
    default. Defendant also pointed out that it retained counsel to represent it in the case three days
    after entry of the default.
    However, we conclude that defense counsel’s failure to respond to the complaint did not
    constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the requirements that led to default. An
    attorney’s negligence is generally attributable to his client. Amco Builders & Developers, Inc v
    Team Ace Joint Venture, 
    469 Mich 90
    , 96; 666 NW2d 623 (2003). Defendant failed to respond
    to the complaint, and we agree with the trial court that the failure to do so because of the
    confusion regarding which attorneys represented defendant did not constitute a minor error that
    would give rise to a reasonable excuse for failure to respond. Defendant did not argue in its
    motion to set aside the default that there was another reasonable excuse for its failure to comply
    with the requirements leading to default or that there was a procedural irregularity giving rise to
    good cause to set aside the default. Therefore, defendant failed to establish good cause to set
    aside the default. See MCR 2.603(D)(1); Bullington, 293 Mich App at 560-561.
    Furthermore, defendant did not establish a meritorious defense. Defendant contended
    that it had a meritorious defense to the complaint because it was the named insured under the
    policy, and plaintiffs were the additional insureds. Defendant contended that plaintiffs did not
    -8-
    make loan payments or pay real estate taxes over the past several years. Defendant further
    argued that it obtained property insurance and that it had the power to act for plaintiffs with
    regard to the insurance coverage. Therefore, defendant was entitled to the check. The injunction
    claim was rendered moot because defendant forwarded the check to plaintiffs. With regard to
    plaintiffs’ conversion claim, defendant argued that the conversion claim was conclusory.
    Furthermore, plaintiffs could not establish conversion because defendant was a payee on the
    check, and defendant procured the insurance.
    Defendant included an affidavit of its national managing counsel, stating that defendant
    did not endorse, cash, or deposit the check. Instead, defendant forwarded the complaint to its
    prior counsel with the expectation that prior counsel would defend it in this case. However,
    defendant learned that its prior counsel did not respond to the complaint, and defendant retained
    its current counsel to defend it in the case. Defendant’s current counsel sent the check through
    overnight mail to plaintiffs’ counsel. The affidavit stated that defendant had a meritorious
    defense because plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief.
    Defendant failed to show a meritorious defense to plaintiffs’ claims. As discussed above,
    defendant was not entitled to the insurance proceeds because there was no valid mortgage on the
    property. Furthermore, the affidavit merely stated, “Ocwen has a meritorious defense because
    Plaintiffs’ Complaint generally fails to conform to minimum pleadings requirements and each
    individual count fails to state a claim for relief as more fully detailed in Ocwen’s accompanying
    Motion to Set Aside the Default.” The statement in the affidavit was conclusory and, as noted
    above, plaintiffs pleaded sufficient claims regarding common-law conversion, declaratory relief,
    and injunctive relief in their complaint. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion
    to set aside the default because defendant failed to establish good cause or a meritorious defense.
    See MCR 2.603(D)(1).
    IV. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
    The trial court also properly denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment.
    Defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 2.611 and MCR 2.612. We
    review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside a judgment.
    Wolf v Mahar, 
    308 Mich App 120
    , 128; 862 NW2d 668 (2014). “A court abuses its discretion
    when its decision is outside the range of principled outcomes.” 
    Id.
     (citation and quotation marks
    omitted).
    MCR 2.611(A)(1) provides, in part:
    A new trial may be granted to all or some of the parties, on all or some of
    the issues, whenever their substantial rights are materially affected, for any of the
    following reasons:
    * * *
    (e) A verdict or decision against the great weight of the evidence or
    contrary to law.
    * * *
    -9-
    (g) Error of law occurring in the proceedings, or mistake of fact by the
    court.
    MCR 2.612(C)(1) provides, in part:
    On motion and on just terms, the court may relieve a party or the legal
    representative of a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding on the
    following grounds:
    * * *
    (f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
    Defendant requested relief from judgment, contending that it could not convert an unendorsed
    and uncashed check. Defendant pointed out that it did not endorse the check. Defendant argued
    that it was a payee and that it did not convert the funds for its own use because it did not endorse
    the check. It further contended that good cause existed to set aside the default because venue
    was improper in Ingham County. Defendant contended that plaintiffs were residents of Lapeer
    County, and because conversion is an intentional tort, the lawsuit should have been filed in
    Lapeer County. Finally, it contended that the court improperly entered default judgment without
    considering the merits of plaintiffs’ claims or evidence regarding damages.
    As discussed above, plaintiffs failed to state a legally cognizable claim of statutory
    conversion. Thus, we agree with defendant that the trial court erred in awarding treble damages
    and attorney fees. However, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the trial court did
    not err in otherwise denying defendant’s request for relief from judgment because plaintiffs’
    complaint stated legally cognizable claims for common-law conversion, injunctive relief, and
    declaratory relief, and defendant failed to establish good cause and a meritorious defense for
    setting aside the default.
    In its motion for relief from judgment, defendant raised for the first time the issue
    whether venue was proper. The trial court determined that defendant waived this issue by failing
    to raise it earlier. MCR 2.221(A) provides that a motion for a change of venue must be filed
    either before or at the time that the defendant files an answer. Defendant did not file a motion
    for a change of venue or an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. Therefore, the trial court did not err
    in ruling that defendant waived the issue. In addition, the court properly concluded that the
    venue issue was an insufficient basis to set aside the default judgment. MCL 600.1645 provides,
    “No order, judgment, or decree shall be void or voidable solely on the ground that there was
    improper venue.” Therefore, even assuming that venue was improper, the default judgment was
    not void or voidable merely because the case was filed in the wrong venue. See 
    id.
    V. CONCLUSION
    We affirm the trial court’s grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs, as well
    as its determination that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the check, less the insurance premium,
    under a theory of common-law conversion, but we reverse the entry of default judgment on the
    issue of statutory conversion and the award of treble damages pursuant to MCL 600.2919a(1).
    -10-
    Finally, we reverse the award of attorney fees under MCL 600.2919a(1). We remand the case to
    the trial court for modification of the judgment consistent with this opinion.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. No costs, neither party having prevailed in full. See
    MCR 7.219(A).
    /s/ Donald S. Owens
    /s/ Kathleen Jansen
    /s/ Christopher M. Murray
    -11-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 320704

Filed Date: 5/24/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021