-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

ESTATE OF PAUL KELLY, by SEAN C. 

KELLEY, Personal Representative, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

February 25, 2016 

v No. 323621 

Allegan Circuit Court 

ERIC PEET and CONNIE PEET, LC No. 14-053448-CZ 

 Defendant-Appellees. 

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and GLEICHER and M. J. KELLY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 In this defamation action, plaintiff, Sean C. Kelley, as personal representative of the 

estate of his father, Paul Kelley,1

 appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition to 

defendants, Eric Peet and Connie Peet, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm. 

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 A brief introduction of the relevant parties is necessary. Eric’s mother, Patricia Peet, was 

formerly married to the late John S. Yerington. In approximately 1984, Yerington retained Paul, 

an attorney licensed to practice in Michigan, to perform estate planning and probate work. 

Yerington died in February 1991. In 1992, Patricia married Paul, and Eric became Paul’s 

stepson. Sean is the son of Paul and stepbrother of Eric.2

 Defendants—Eric and Connie—are a 

married couple. 

 

1

 Aside from his role as personal representative, Sean Kelly is involved in this matter as an 

individual. In lower court no. 13-052272-CZ, Sean filed a lawsuit raising issues that are nearly 

identical to the issues raised in this case. His appeal in that matter is being heard in Court of 

Appeals docket No. 326669. For ease of reference in this case, we use the term “plaintiff” to 

refer to Sean in his representative capacity, and we use “Sean” to refer to him in his individual 

capacity. 

2

 Paul died during the pendency of this appeal and Sean was appointed personal representative of 

his estate. On October 27, 2015, this Court granted Sean’s motion, filed in his capacity as 
-2- 

 This defamation action has its origins in a June 4, 2013 request for investigation 

defendants3

 filed with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) against Paul. The 

request raised questions about Paul’s handling of Yerington’s estate and alleged that he 

orchestrated a complicated scheme of fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering. According 

to the request filed with the AGC, Paul engaged in this scheme with the help of Sean, a tax 

consultant who lives in California. The gist of the allegations was that, through a series of 

fraudulent actions, Paul and Sean funneled money from the Yerington estate, making it their 

“full[-]time occupations to embezzle, launder, and conceal” the assets in the Yerington estate. 

The request contained an 8-page letter outlining the various alleged transgressions, along with 

over 300 pages of supporting documents. 

 The letter attached to the request for investigation stated that, in addition to the materials 

being sent to the AGC, “[t]hese synopsis, and supporting articles, are being sent to . . . the 

criminal investigation department for the I.R.S. and . . . to the F.B.I.” 

 On June 21, 2013, the AGC sent defendants a letter indicating that the allegations in the 

request were “insufficient to warrant review by the Commission” and that the matter was being 

closed by the AGC Grievance Commissioner. In addition, the AGC sent Paul a copy of the 

request for investigation. 

 Paul’s receipt of the request for investigation triggered the filing of two lawsuits: one by 

Sean and one by Paul. On May 30, 2014, Paul sued defendants for, among other matters, 

defamation4 based on the allegations raised in the request for investigation. On June 23, 2014, 

defendants moved the trial court for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing 

that the statements in the request for investigation and statements made to law enforcement 

officials5

 were absolutely privileged, and that Paul’s claims were barred as a matter of law. 

personal representative, to be substituted as a party for Paul. Kelley v Peet, unpublished order of 

the Court of Appeals, entered October 27, 2015 (Docket No. 323621). 

3

 It is not readily apparent from the request for investigation that Connie made the statements 

contained therein. However, because defendants’ brief on appeal impliedly concedes she made 

the statements by evaluating the issues raised as if Connie made the statements, we decline to 

look further into this matter. 

4

 Because the only claim Paul mentions on appeal is defamation, the focus of this opinion will be 

on defamation. Moreover, because the rest of Paul’s claims were contingent upon his 

defamation claims, and because he abandons them on appeal, we decline to find any error 

requiring reversal in regard to those claims. 

5

 We note that the request for investigation mentioned that defendants intended to send 

communications to the criminal investigation division of the IRS, as well as to the FBI. 

However, the record is unclear as to the precise contents of the communications sent to the IRS 

and the FBI. Paul’s complaint alleged that defendants sent the communications to these other 

entities, and, for purposes of review under MCR 2.116(C)(8), we accept these well-pleaded 

allegations as true. See Gorman v American Honda Motor Co, 302 Mich App 113, 131; 839 

NW2d 223 (2013). Furthermore, although defendants disputed what exactly was sent to the IRS 
-3- 

 In response, Paul argued that the statements made to law enforcement were afforded only 

a qualified privilege, rather than an absolute privilege. With regard to the communication made 

to the AGC, Paul noted that MCR 9.125 provides absolute immunity, but only “for statements 

and communications transmitted solely to the administrator, the commission, or the commission 

staff . . . .” (Emphasis added). Paul argued that defendants did not make their statements 

“solely” to the AGC because they also made them to law enforcement, and thereby lost the 

absolute immunity provided under MCR 9.125. 

 After a hearing on the motion for summary disposition, the trial court granted summary 

disposition to defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). The trial court ruled that defendants’ 

statements to law enforcement were entitled to absolute privilege under Michigan law. With 

respect to MCR 9.125, the court noted that Paul made a compelling argument, but reasoned that 

his interpretation would destroy immunity when criminal facts are involved in the complaint and 

law enforcement is contacted. Subsequently, the trial court stated, “[t]hat cannot be what the 

Supreme Court intended when it passed 9.125. I think what they really intended was to say 

when you file a complaint with the administrator, the commission or the commission staff you’re 

absolutely immune unless you engage in a publication which is not immune.” Accordingly, the 

trial court interpreted the immunity under MCR 9.125 to apply to situations where the statements 

are also published to law enforcement officials and granted defendants’ motion pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(8). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 “A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of 

the claim on the basis of the pleadings alone and the ruling is reviewed de novo.” Bailey v 

Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 603; 835 NW2d 413 (2013). Because a (C)(8) motion tests the legal 

sufficiency of a claim, “the court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the 

complaint[,]” and “[t]he motion must be granted if no factual development could justify the 

plaintiff’s claim for relief.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether privilege 

applies is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Oesterle v Wallace, 272 Mich App 

260, 263; 725 NW2d 470 (2006). 

B. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY APPLIES TO DISCLOSURES MADE TO LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

 We first address the claim of defamation alleged against defendants for the statements 

made to law enforcement officers. This required proof on the following elements: 

(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged 

communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the 

and the FBI, they never disputed that they sent some form of communication detailing Paul’s 

alleged misdeeds to the IRS and FBI. In addition, we note that there has never been any dispute 

about whether the communication to the criminal division of the IRS was one that was made to 

law enforcement. 
-4- 

part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of 

special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by 

publication. [defamation per quod] [Mitan v Campbell, 474 Mich 21, 24; 706 

NW2d 420 (2005)6

.] 

It is the second element—an unprivileged communication—with which we concern ourselves on 

appeal. Because the second element requires the communication to be unprivileged, a 

defamation action fails if the communication was privileged. See Mitan, 474 Mich at 24. “A 

privileged occasion is an occasion where the public good requires that a person be freed from 

liability for the publication of a statement that would otherwise be defamatory.” Oesterle, 272 

Mich App at 264 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “If a statement is absolutely privileged, 

it is not actionable even if it was false and maliciously published.” Id. 

 The parties’ focus before the trial court, as well as their briefs on appeal, concerned 

whether our Supreme Court’s decision in Shinglemeyer v Wright, 124 Mich 230; 82 NW 887 

(1900), applied an absolute privilege to statements made to law enforcement officials. Plaintiff 

argues that Shinglemeyer did not provide an absolute privilege and that the law in this area lacks 

clarity. Defendant disagrees and contends that Shinglemeyer provides an absolute privilege in 

this instance, and disagrees about the state of the law in this area post-Shinglemeyer. 

 We agree with defendants that the Court in Shinglemeyer announced an absolute 

privilege for statements made to law enforcement. Furthermore, whatever confusion existed in 

regard to the type of immunity to be applied to statements made to law enforcement was recently 

put to rest in Eddington v Torrez, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2015) (Docket No. 320882). 

In Eddington, this Court held that an absolute privilege applies to “any report of criminal activity 

to law enforcement personnel in the context of a defamation claim[.]” Id. at ___; slip op at 3. 

The Eddington Court explained that this absolute privilege dated back to Shinglemeyer, which 

had never been overruled and which remains good law. Id. at __; slip op at 2-3. “Consequently, 

persons who make statements to police in the pursuit of reporting crimes in the context of a 

defamation claim or assisting the police in investigating crimes enjoy a privilege in those 

statements against the police divulging them for any purpose other than law enforcement.” Id. at 

__; slip op at 2. Our decision in Eddington conclusively resolves the issue and rejects any claim 

by plaintiff that qualified immunity applies in this case. Defendants’ statements to law 

enforcement were absolutely immune. 

C. DEFENDANTS ARE ALSO IMMUNE FOR STATEMENTS MADE TO THE AGC 

 The next issue concerns whether defendants were entitled to immunity for the statements 

they made to the AGC. This issue requires us to interpret MCR 9.125. The interpretation of this 

 

6

 In his complaint, Paul asserted a claim for defamation by implication, which requires a showing 

that “defamatory implications are materially false,” rather than defamatory statements. Hawkins 

v Mercy Health Services, Inc, 230 Mich App 315, 330; 583 NW2d 725 (1998). Plaintiff 

abandons this claim on appeal by failing to address it in detail. Moreover, because of our 

conclusion that statements made were absolutely immune, there is no merit to this claim. 
-5- 

court rule is a question of law that we review de novo. Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 

495; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). 

 The principles of statutory interpretation apply to the interpretation of the Michigan Court 

Rules. Id. Thus, the first step is to ascertain the meaning of the text by considering the plain 

language. Id. “The intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule 

itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Id. (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). When the language of the court rule “is unambiguous, [this Court] 

must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” 

Grievance Administrator v Underwood, 462 Mich 188, 194; 612 NW2d 116 (2000). In doing so, 

“common words must be understood to have their everyday, plain meaning,” id., and courts may 

consult a dictionary to determine a word’s common and ordinary meaning, Krohn v HomeOwners Ins Co, 490 Mich 145, 156; 802 NW2d 281 (2011). The language of the court rule 

should be construed reasonably, keeping in mind the purpose of the court rule and to avoid 

absurd results. See Rogers v Wcisel, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2015) (Docket No. 

318395), slip op at 4. In addition, when construing MCR 9.125, we are guided by the declaration 

in MCR 9.102(A) that MCR 9.125, along with the rest of subchapter 9.100 “is to be liberally 

construed for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession . . . .” See also 

Grievance Admin v Deutch, 455 Mich 149, 165; 565 NW2d 369 (1997). 

 Defendants’ claim of immunity for the communication to the AGC is rooted in MCR 

9.125. Pertinent to this case, the rule grants absolute immunity to persons giving statements and 

communications to the AGC. Colista v Thomas, 241 Mich App 529, 535-536; 616 NW2d 249 

(2000). MCR 9.125 provides, in pertinent part: 

A person is absolutely immune from suit for statements and communications 

transmitted solely to the administrator,[7] the commission,[8] or the commission 

staff, or given in an investigation or proceeding on alleged misconduct or 

reinstatement. 

 Plaintiff focuses on the word “solely” in MCR 9.125 and contends that defendants’ 

statements to parties other than the AGC—here the FBI and IRS—“rupture” defendants’ 

entitlement to immunity from suit for the statements and communications they made to the AGC. 

In other words, plaintiff contends that a person can have absolute immunity under MCR 9.125 if 

he or she only makes a statement to the AGC, but upon making a disclosure to law 

enforcement—to which absolute immunity would apply—the person loses absolute immunity 

under MCR 9.125. Even assuming that defendants’ AGC submission was published to the FBI 

and the IRS, as plaintiff alleges in his complaint, it is not clear from plaintiff’s pleadings or the 

record that it was the same transmission, as compared to a subsequent or separate event. 

Regardless, the specific purpose and intent of MCR 9.125 is to grant people immunity from suit 

arising out of their statements and communications transmitted to the AGC and to make clear 

 

7

 MCR 9.101(3) defines “administrator” as “the grievance administrator.” 

8

 MCR 9.101(2) defines “commission” as “the Attorney Grievance Commission.” 
-6- 

that if a person sends the statements and communications to individuals or entities outside the 

privileged arena, the immunity is lost.9

 It would be illogical and absurd to conclude, as plaintiff 

would have us do, that “two rights make a wrong,” or in other words, that communicating 

information to two or more bodies for which the information communicated enjoys absolute 

immunity somehow breaches or “ruptures” the entitlement to absolute immunity set forth in 

MCR 9.125. We decline to adopt such a hypertechnical reading of the court rule. 

 Indeed, adopting plaintiff’s proposed interpretation would cause a person to have to make 

a choice when he or she has knowledge of attorney misconduct that amounts to a crime. If the 

person wants to disclose the misconduct and take advantage of a grant of absolute immunity for 

making the disclosure, the person can either, under plaintiff’s interpretation: (1) disclose to the 

AGC; or (2) disclose to law enforcement. The individual in this example would not be immune 

if he or she made the disclosure to both law enforcement and the AGC, because doing so would 

run afoul of plaintiff’s strained interpretation of the word “solely” in MCR 9.125. Forcing this 

choice upon a person can hardly be said to comport with MCR 9.102(A)’s goal of protecting the 

public, courts, and legal profession. 

 To construe the court rule so as to destroy the grant of immunity in the face of another 

privileged communication is unreasonable and fails to keep in mind the purpose of the court rule. 

See Rogers, __ Mich App at __, slip op at 4. Chapter 9 pertains to professional disciplinary 

proceedings wherein, except as provided by the chapter, investigations by the administrator or 

the staff are privileged from disclosure, confidential, and may not be made public. MCR 

9.126(A). The purpose of MCR 9.125 is to provide absolute immunity to people for statements 

they make to the AGC, with the goal of protecting the public and legal profession, and leaving 

uncloaked unprivileged communications. The use of the word “solely” is reasonably construed 

as a limitation to avoid extending the grant of immunity to statements that would otherwise lack 

immunity. We find that this interpretation not only adheres to the language in the court rule 

when viewed as a whole, but also comports with the rule’s purpose and intent and avoids absurd 

results. See MCR 9.102(A) (“Subchapter 9.100” which includes MCR 9.125, “is to be liberally 

construed for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession . . .”); Rogers, __ 

Mich App at __, slip op at 4 (statutes are to be construed so as to avoid absurd results); In re 

Consumers Energy, 310 Mich App 614, 624; __ NW2d __ (2015) (“When construing a statute, a 

court should not abandon the canons of common sense.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

 Affirmed. 

 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

 

9

 For instance, neither party disputes that if defendants had sent their AGC submission to a media 

outlet, their entitlement to absolute immunity under MCR 9.125 would be lost.