Michigan Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Application for Leave in Favor of Condominium Association
Joel Ashton and Stanley Okoli recently had dismissals upheld on two related Condominium Association cases in the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court.
To say the least, these were contentious cases in which a co-owner experienced a sewer back-up in her basement in October 2016, with the alleged subsequent discovery of rod hole leaks in the foundation, for which she initially sued the Condominium Association, its insurer, the plumbing/sewer cleaning service and the restoration company, but also eventually attempted to remove the assigned Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge on alleged bias, attempted to disqualify the entire Washtenaw County bench by way of a Writ for Superintending Control to the Court of Appeals, sent a Quo Warranto Action Request to the Attorney General, later filed a second lawsuit against the individual board members of the Condominium Association and its general manager, and eventually appealed the dismissals of both cases.
While difficult to summarize the plaintiff’s often vague and evolving claims, she essentially claimed that the Condominium Association and plumbing/sewer service were involved in a conspiracy to hide a larger sewer or drainage problem from the association members. During discovery, the plumbing/sewer service representative testified that the back-up was caused by tampons being flushed down toilets, which could have entered the system from any of the multiple units sharing the system, which he was able to remove to remedy the back-up. Despite discovery supporting that the plaintiff recognized the cause in a social media platform, in which she also requested that co-owners limit what they flushed down their toilets, the plaintiff denied that tampons were found or the cause of the back-up during litigation.
Consistent with their duties in the governing documents, the Condominium Association was always willing to maintain or repair any common elements for the plaintiff, including the sewer and foundation, but, after some initial interactions, she refused to allow the Condominium Association to send representatives of its choosing to inspect her unit – this also despite the governing documents giving the association the right to have representatives of its choice inspect the unit.
The plaintiff filed a lengthy Complaint, alleging many counts against the parties, including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, specific performance, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. Throughout discovery, Plaintiff counsel adjourned the plaintiff’s deposition three different times, eventually resulting in an Order to Compel her testimony. During discovery, Plaintiff counsel advised Defense counsel that she would not be utilizing any experts, did not reveal any experts in response to discovery, and, in fact, did not list any experts on her Witness List. Without leave of Court, she then attempted to supplement her Witness List with several experts, which the Court then struck pursuant to our Motion to Strike Experts. Plaintiff counsel filed voluminous motions, most of which were denied and followed by motions for reconsideration. We were able to have all counts dismissed on summary disposition, except for breach of contract due to a perceived question of fact.
As an example of the Plaintiff’s gamesmanship and abuse in this case, late in the case, the judge allowed the Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to add counts for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, intentional misrepresentation and nuisance at a Wednesday motion call, but requiring the amended complaint to be filed by that Friday. At the Plaintiff’s court ordered deposition on that Thursday and Friday, Plaintiff counsel refused to allow the plaintiff to answer questions about the newly added counts on the basis that the counts had not yet been added since the amended complaint had not yet been filed. We immediately moved to dismiss the entire case and for sanctions, an extreme sanction which the judge admitted was almost deserved, but instead she just dismissed the newly added counts. As another example, although the Court ordered the plaintiff to suggest the names of three proposed facilitators, which the defense could then consider or suggest three names of its own, Plaintiff counsel only suggested one and immediately filed a motion to require the use of that facilitator.
The Court ordered, non-binding facilitation hearing was eventually scheduled, at which the facilitator was specifically chosen by the plaintiff. Despite the facilitator and the Court ordering an inspection of the unit, for which information could not be used as evidence at trial, the Plaintiff objected to the inspection. Then the plaintiff only allowed part of the inspection to occur. The facilitation was never completed due to Plaintiff counsel insisting on presenting the dismissed claims and threatening to sue the facilitator for interfering with her relationship with her client. The plaintiff then refused to pay her portion of the facilitator fee (for which the facilitator later obtained a Judgment against the plaintiff).
As the case progressed, so did the plaintiff’s claimed damages. Although the governing documents made it the unit owner’s responsibility to insure personal property within the unit as well as improvements and betterments, and to pay for alternative living arrangements, the plaintiff initially requested approximately $25,000 for precisely these damages. This was eventually increased to approximately $37,000 and then $380,000 pre-suit, with the total demand being more than $1,900.000 at the facilitation hearing.
In response to our filing a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to participate in the court-ordered facilitation in good faith or, alternately for security for costs, the plaintiff filed her second lawsuit, in which she deemed herself to be the derivative representative of the association members, focusing on alleged fraud in the facilitation, which she captioned as a business case and failed to reference the pending case, to which we moved to have the case transferred to the same judge along with the pending case. It was at this point that, in addition to attempting to recuse the judge, the plaintiff also moved to remove defense counsel and our firm based on alleged fraud – which, of course, was denied. Highlights of the second case included the plaintiff serving both the sitting judge and defense counsel with subpoenas for deposition. The judge granted our motion for security for costs, requiring the plaintiff to post a bond for $50,000, which the plaintiff did not pay, the judge recused herself, based on the plaintiff’s perception of bias, and the case was assigned to a new judge, who dismissed the original case based on the plaintiff’s failure to post a security bond and dismissed the second case at our request based on the plaintiff not being the rightful representative of the association and bringing claims that should have been part of the original case.
As expected, the plaintiff appealed the dismissals of both cases which we had consolidated on appeal. The plaintiff vaguely argued many points, including many constitutional theories, and that the plaintiff was denied her right to a trial since she could not afford to post a bond, but ignoring her own abuses and the substantive facts of the cases. At oral argument, the panel focused their questions on the plaintiff’s gamesmanship and obstruction, including plaintiff counsel advising her client to not answer questions despite the lack of any privilege, attempting to hold the defense hostage by refusing to allow her client to answer questions unless we agreed to re-open discovery to allow her to utilize stricken experts, filing “multitudinous motions” and failing to follow court rules.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of both cases, agreeing with us that the plaintiff’s failure to timely name experts was not inadvertent, but part of “a pattern intended to deliberately drag out the litigation;” that the trial court’s determination of the issuance and amount of a security bond is determined on a case-by case basis; and that the second case should never have been filed.
Not yet done, the plaintiff then applied for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court on the original case. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application.
After 20 months of heated litigation in the trial court, a double appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Application for Leave to the Michigan Supreme Court, it was satisfying to provide a victory for our Condominium Association.
Joel Ashton is a partner in the Livonia office of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC where he focuses his practice on community association law, insurance defense, including Michigan No-Fault claims (PIP, automobile negligence, uninsured/ underinsured motorist), as well as premises liability and general negligence. His practice also includes the defense of contract and liability claims, contract interpretation issues, subrogation claims involving automobile, fire and casualty, commercial and related coverage. Mr. Ashton maintains an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale -Hubbell, which is the highest possible rating an attorney can achieve for both ethical standards and legal ability. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jashton@cmda-law.com.
Stanley I. Okoli is an attorney in in the Livonia office of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC where he focuses his practice on research and writing, as well as litigation. He writes briefs for submission to all levels of state and federal courts, argues cases in both the state and federal courts of appeals, and performs research for all areas of law handled by our Firm. Mr. Okoli has taken over 30 cases to Michigan Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and has handled 14 jury trials. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or sokoli@cmda-law.com.
CMDA Law
Recent Posts
- Michigan Expands its Earned Sick Time Law and Increases Minimum Wage
- Richards’ Article on Medicaid Estate Recovery Featured in Urban Aging News
- Jim Acho Guest on WJR Morning and Afternoon Shows to Discuss New NCAA NIL Lawsuit
- Jim Acho Files Landmark NCAA Class Action Suit
- Livonia Attorneys Participate in Detroit Mercy Law School’s On-Campus Interviews
Recent Comments
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- August 2010
- January 2010
- January 2009
- September 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
Categories
- 50th Anniversary
- Allan C. Vander Laan
- Appeals and Litigation
- Appeals and Litigation Articles
- Barbara M. Moore
- Business Law
- Business Law Articles
- Carol A. Smith
- Christopher G. Schultz
- Community Association & Real Estate Law Practice Group
- Community Association and Real Estate Law Articles
- Community Association Law
- Daniel W. Ferris
- Douglas Curlew
- Education Law
- Education Law Articles
- Employment and Labor Law
- Employment and Labor Law Articles
- Estate Planning and Elder Law
- Estate Planning and Elder Law Articles
- Firm News
- Gary D. Klein
- Gerald C. Davis
- Gregory A. Roberts
- Gregory R. Grant
- Haider A. Kazim
- Insurance Defense
- Insurance Defense Articles
- Isa M. Kasoga
- Jacklyn P. Paletta
- James R. Acho
- James W. Taylor II
- Jeffrey R. Clark
- Joel Ashton
- John "Jay" Gillen
- John D Gwyn
- John M. McFarland
- Joshua J. Cervantes
- Kenneth M. Gonko
- Kevin J. Campbell
- Kimberly M. Coschino
- Kristen L. Rewa
- Latest News
- Law Enforcement Defense and Litigation Articles
- Law Enforcement Litigation and Defense
- Linda Davis Friedland
- Litigation
- Margaret A. Lourdes
- Matthew C. Wayne
- Matthew W. Cross
- Michael O. Cummings
- Michelle L. Richards
- Municipal Law
- Municipal Law Articles
- News & Events for Business Law
- News & Events for Municipal Law
- News Archive
- Norman E. Richards
- Owen J. Cummings
- Patrick R. Sturdy
- Plaintiff's Personal Injury
- Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Articles
- Presentations & Articles
- Published Articles
- Ray E. Richards II
- Real Estate Law
- Robert J. Hahn
- Robert L. Blamer
- Ronald G. Acho
- Ryan D. Miller
- Sarah L. Overton
- Shane R. Nolan
- Stanley I. Okoli
- Stephen C. Johnston
- Suzanne P. Bartos
- Timothy S. Ferrand
- Uncategorized
- Utility Law
- Utility Law Articles
Leave a Reply