Opinion
SC: 164517 COA: 356113
12-16-2022
Bridgett FEAGIN, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. Michael S. MOROSKI, Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Welch, J. (dissenting).
I disagree with the majority's denial of leave to appeal. Instead, I would have vacated the June 8, 2022 order of the Court of Appeals and remanded this case to that Court for consideration as on reconsideration granted with regard to defendant's arguments concerning his counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff initiated a summary proceeding in district court against defendant to recover possession of a residential property in Detroit that had been conveyed by way of a fraudulent quitclaim deed. Defendant took possession of the property after acquiring a deed down the chain of title of the fraudulent deed, apparently without knowledge of the fraud. After receiving the deed, defendant allegedly changed the locks and made several repairs and improvements to the property following a fire. As a result, defendant filed a counterclaim seeking a money judgment for the increase in property value due to his improvements. He premised the counterclaim on two separate counts. In Count I, defendant alleged that he was "entitled to the increased fair market value his renovations caused to the property" under MCR 3.411(F)(1). In Count II, defendant alleged that, as a matter of equity, he was entitled to payment because plaintiff was "unjustly enriched by the value of the improvements [defendant] performed."
The parties stipulated to a consent judgment to confirm plaintiff's title to the property and entitlement to possession, which resolved plaintiff's summary proceeding. Defendant's counterclaims were severed and removed to circuit court. The circuit court granted plaintiff's motion for summary disposition to dispose of both counterclaims. The court subsequently denied plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees based, at least in part, on defendant's subjective belief that he was entitled to compensation.
Following plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals vacated the denial of plaintiff's motion with respect to her request for costs and remanded for the circuit court to either award costs or provide an adequate reason in writing for declining to award costs. Regarding the request for attorney fees, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order to the extent it held that defendant's counterclaims were not frivolous and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals’ analysis and reasoning, however, addressed only defendant's first counterclaim, which was premised on MCR 3.411(F)(1) and the law applicable to such a claim. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied defendant's motion for reconsideration, in which defendant argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously failed to separately consider whether his equitable claim for unjust enrichment was frivolous.
I believe it was an abuse of discretion for the Court of Appeals to deny reconsideration on this record. I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding regarding costs. But plaintiff sought attorney fees as a sanction under MCR 1.109(E)(7), MCR 2.625(A)(2), and MCL 600.2591, which requires a finding that defendant's counterclaims were frivolous. As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, " ‘[a] claim is not frivolous merely because the party advancing the claim does not prevail on it.’ " Grass Lake Improvement Bd. v Dep't of Environmental Quality , 316 Mich. App. 356, 365, 891 N.W.2d 884 (2016) (citation omitted). I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that defendant's claim premised on MCR 3.411(F)(1) was frivolous. That rule only applies to actions to quiet title brought in circuit court, and defendant's pleadings acknowledged that plaintiff did not file such an action. See MCR 3.411(A) ; MCL 600.2932(1). The same cannot be said for defendant's unjust enrichment counterclaim. The Court of Appeals’ reasoning and the law it cited as to defendant's claim under MCR 3.411 (Count I) had no relevance to an independent equitable claim for unjust enrichment (Count II). A claim for unjust enrichment "is a cause of action to correct a defendant's unjust retention of a benefit owed to another," Wright v. Genesee Co. , 504 Mich. 410, 417, 934 N.W.2d 805 (2019), and it "can arise when a party ‘has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another,’ " id. at 418, 934 N.W.2d 805, quoting McCreary v. Shields , 333 Mich. 290, 294, 52 N.W.2d 853 (1952). The remedy is restitution. Wright , 504 Mich. at 418, 934 N.W.2d 805.
Nothing in the Court of Appeals opinion explains why defendant's counterclaim for unjust enrichment was frivolous, such as being "devoid of arguable legal merit." MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii ). In fact, the Court of Appeals did not address defendant's unjust enrichment claim at all despite its blanket ruling that plaintiff is entitled to sanctions because of defendant's pleading frivolous counterclaims. I believe defendant's motion for reconsideration demonstrated a "palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled," MCR 2.119(F)(3), and thus the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by denying reconsideration, MCR 7.215(I). I respectfully dissent.