If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ROBERT MURDOCK and CLAIRE MURDOCK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNPUBLISHED

June 30, 2022

v No. 358530

Cheboygan Circuit Court

BISHOP GMC CADILLAC, INC., LC No. 21-008827-NZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and M.J. KELLY and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 

et seq., plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition pursuant 

to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendant. Because the trial court resolved the case by going 

straight to the merits instead of addressing its subject-matter jurisdiction as a threshold issue, we 

reverse and remand for consideration of the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In October 2020, plaintiffs leased a 2020 Cadillac XT4 from defendant, a new motor 

vehicle dealership. The lease agreement reflected that the vehicle was “new” (the available options 

on the form were “new” or “used”), but stated that the vehicle’s odometer read 3,021 miles. The 

lease made clear that the “agreed upon value” of the vehicle was $44,010. Plaintiffs owed $7,048 

at signing, but received a credit of $3,400 because of the accrued miles on the vehicle. Therefore, 

plaintiffs paid $3,648 in cash at signing. The monthly payment under the lease was $391.91, and 

the vehicle’s residual value at the end of the 39-month lease was identified on the lease agreement 

as $25,137.

In December 2020, plaintiffs discovered that the vehicle was involved in an accident before 

they leased it. That news did not go over well. The next month, plaintiffs filed a complaint in 

Cheboygan County Circuit Court alleging that defendant violated MCL 445.902(1)(d) of the 

Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq., when it offered the vehicle as new and 

when it did not disclose the accident. After answering the complaint, defendant moved for 

summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(10). Defendant contended in passing that 
-2-

Michigan law did not require it to disclose the accident and that the vehicle was not held out as 

new. But the focus of defendant’s motion for summary disposition was that the circuit court lacked 

subject-matter jurisdiction because “the damages do not exceed $25,000.00.” After a hearing, the 

trial court granted the motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding that the record was undisputed 

that the vehicle was “new” at the time the lease was signed and that, under Michigan law, defendant 

was not required to disclose the accident. Plaintiffs now appeal the trial court’s ruling.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court’s two reasons for awarding summary disposition under 

MCR 2.116(C)(10) to defendant were erroneous. Without evaluating the merits of the parties’ 

arguments or the trial court’s decision, we reverse because the trial court did not first determine 

that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims before rendering a decision on the 

merits. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (subject-matter 

jurisdiction) and (10) (no genuine issue of material fact). A grant or denial of summary disposition 

is reviewed de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Summary 

disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is warranted when “[t]he court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

matter.” “A trial court is duty-bound to recognize the limits of its subject-matter jurisdiction, and 

it must dismiss an action when subject-matter jurisdiction is not present.” The Meisner Law Group 

PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass’n, 321 Mich App 702, 714; 909 NW2d 890 (2017). Jurisdictional 

issues are threshold questions that must be addressed before a trial court may reach the merits of a 

claim. See Barshaw v Allegheny Performance Plastics, LLC, 334 Mich App 741, 752; 965 NW2d 

729 (2020). “Circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and 

remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some 

other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this 

state.” City of Southfield v Shefa, LLC, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 

350885), slip op at 8, citing MCL 600.605. By virtue of MCL 600.8301(1), the district courts 

possess “exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed 

$25,000.00.” Accordingly, if the amount in controversy in this case did not exceed $25,000, the 

trial court was required to dismiss the complaint and was not permitted to render a determination 

on the merits.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds the District Court 

jurisdiction limit of $25,000[,]” but defendant’s answer stated that “Defendant neither admits nor 

denies the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction of the District Court and leaves the 

Plaintiff’s [sic] to their proofs.” Generally, “the pleadings determine the amount in controversy 

for purposes of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 

Mich 211, 213; 884 NW2d 238 (2016). Therefore, “absent a finding of bad faith,” subject-matter 

jurisdiction is “determined based on the amount alleged in the pleadings.” Id. at 221-222. But in 

moving for summary disposition, defendant stated at the outset of its motion that relief under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) should be granted because “the damages do not exceed $25,000.00.” And in the brief 

in support of the motion, defendant argued that the bulk of the damages, i.e., $25,137, “is the price 

to purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease which is an option at the Plaintiff’s discretion[,]” but 

“[t]he Plaintiff has not exercised the option nor has the Plaintiff legally bound himself to purchase 

the car[,]” so that component to damages is purely illusory. Defendant’s brief closed by asserting 

“[t]hat this complaint does not exceed $25,000 and therefore [the case is] not appropriate in this 

court which requires $25,000 in damages[.]” In other words, defendant plainly presented a direct 
-3-

challenge to the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, strongly suggesting that the complaint was 

filed in bad faith in circuit court, rather than in district court. The trial court, therefore, was bound 

to address that threshold challenge to its subject-matter jurisdiction under MCR 2.116(C)(4) before 

resolving the merits of the dispute. In doing so, the trial court must consider documentary evidence 

beyond the pleadings to determine whether the amount in controversy could exceed $25,000. See 

Meisner Law Group, 321 Mich App at 717-718. We express no opinion at this time, and none 

should be implied, about the factual merits of defendant’s motion for summary disposition under 

MCR 2.116(C)(4). With these directions, we remand the case for consideration of that threshold 

issue as a necessary prelude to any decision on the merits. 

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain 

jurisdiction.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Christopher P. Yates