-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

SHORELINE EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellee, UNPUBLISHED February 9, 2017

v No. 329403 Wayne Circuit Court
GREGORY EDWARD GRAY and CHERYL GRAY, LC No. 14-002147-CH

Defendants-Counter-PlaintiffsAppellants.

Before: S ERVITTO , P.J., and S TEPHENS and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Defendants were the owners of a condominium unit in Shoreline East Condominiums, of which plaintiff is the condominiu m association. Plaintiff comm enced this action because defendants failed to pay their condominium assessments, resulti ng in a compounded arrearage in excess of $30,579.85. Defendants tacitly concede that they did not make the payments, but rather contend that they are not obligated to make those paymen ts due to mismanagement by plaintiff. Defendants’ purporte d counterclaim is substantively just an argument to the same effect. The trial court granted plaintiffs a judgment of judic ial foreclosure, a money award, and
the dismissal of the counter-co mplaint. Defendants appeal, and we affirm.

We recognize that defendants are appearing before us in propria persona , and we choose to exercise our discretion to give their matters consideration despite the inadequacies of their briefing. See Mack v City of Detroit , 467 Mich 186, 206-209; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). The
defendants’ brief consists of a series of citations to authorit y and conclusory statements that indicate they should prevail without any explanation or argumen t as to why the authority is
relevant to the facts of this ca se. We choose to exercise our discretion in this appeal even though
otherwise the issues would be considered abandoned. See Mitcham v City of Detroit , 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). Woods v SLB Property Mgt

, LLC , 277 Mich App 622, 626-627; 750 NW2d 228 (2008); Joerger v Gordon Food Service

, Inc , 224 Mich App 167, 175; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).-2- Ostensibly, defendants argue tha t the trial court violated the ir constitutional rights to a trial by jury and to due process of law by granting summary dis position in favor of plaintiff on the complaint and the counter-complaint. This is completely co ntrary to long-standing and wellsettled law. “A speedy method of obtaining a judgment . . . , where no valid defense is interposed, has been employed in this state for almost a hundre d years.” People ’ s Wayne County
Bank v Wolverine Box Co , 250 Mich 273, 276; 230 NW 170 (1930). Defendants’ argument, to the extent they make one, is a tired and well-worn one; it has been conclusively and exhaustively established that a summary judgment law under which a jury—in o ther words, the trier of fact

— is only assigned to try disputed facts if any facts are actuall y in dispute deprives litigants of no rights whatsoever. Id . at 276-284. The Seventh Amendment “preserves the right to a jury trial” only if the claims “cannot be settled or determined as a matter of law.” Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd Partnership v Markel , 226 Mich App 127, 133; 573 NW2d 61 (1997) (internal quotation omitted). It has been equally established that summa ry disposition of a case lacking in a dispute of relevant facts does not deprive litigants of their due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment. People ’ s Wayne County Bank , 250 Mich at 276-284.

Here, the relevant facts are completely undisputed: defendants challenged only w hether they were obligated to pay the assessment fees, not the fact th at they did not pay them. Defendants’ argument was premised on plaintiff’s alleged failur e to provide proper maintenance of their condominium unit, but plaintiff likewise did not serio usly dispute the maintenance problems defendants’ unit suffered. Rather, plaintiff correctl y that “[a] co-owner may not assert in an answer, or set off to a c omplaint brought by the associat ion for non-payment of
assessments the fact that the a ssociation of co- owners or its a gents have not provided the services or management to a co-owner(s).” MCL 559.239. Defendants’ arg ument necessarily fails as a matter of law, and no relevant facts are in dispute. 1 Furthermore, plaintiff’s suit for judicial foreclosure is equitable in nature, and cases in equity have no general right to a trial by jury. Superior Prod Co v Merucci Bros Inc , 107 Mich App 153, 161; 309 NW2d 188 (1981). The trial court therefore properly grante d dismissal of defendants’ count er-complaint wit hout a trial.

To the extent defendants may be asserting that they were denie d an opportunity to be heard, the record is replete with indications that defendants k nowingly and intentionally made themselves difficult or impossible to be contacted, even by the ir own attorney, and can hardly assign error to the ir own conduct. See Lewis v LeGrow , 258 Mich App 175, 210; 670 NW2d 675 (2003). In any event, it is clear that the trial court and cou nsel made every effort to ensure that defendants were aware of all developments in the case; defendan ts clearly had the opportunity to be heard and present their case, so they were afforded ample pr ocedural due process. A person claiming a deprivation of substa ntive due process must show tha t the action was s o arbitrary as to

1 To the extent defendants conte nd that plaintiffs mismanaged th eir records or communications with defendants, we note that the record clearly shows a patter n of defendants providing seriously misleadingly incomplete documentary evidence. For ex ample, their claimed “accord and satisfaction” was obviously nothing of the sort. When the evidence thereof is viewed as a whole, defendants clearly have their own opinions as to how to characterize it, but the facts
themselves reveal no material dispute.-3- shock the conscience. Mettler Walloon LLC v Melrose Twp , 281 Mich App 184, 200-201; 761 NW2d 293 (2008). A thorough review of the record, which we hav e conducted despite defendants’ complete lack of any entitlement for us to do so, d emonstrates nothing arbitrary
about the trial court’ s final order.

Finally, defendants attempt to argue they were denied equal pr otection under the Fourteenth Amendment. “The equality of rights protected by our state constitution is the same as that protected and preserved by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.” Struble v Detroit Auto Inter-Insurance Exch , 86 Mich App 245, 252; 272 NW2d 617 (1978). “Equal protection of the law require s that all persons subject to particular legislation be treat ed alike under like circumstance s and conditions.” Id . Meritless claims are routinely disposed of in a summary manner. Otherwis e, defendants failed to present any facts or arguments that they were treated differently than someone similar situated, or indeed what “similarly situated” even means to them in this context, s o this argument is also abandoned. Yee v Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm ’ rs , 251 Mich App 379, 406; 651 NW2d 756 (2002).

Defendants were not deprived of any rights, and summary dispos ition in favor of plaintiff was unambiguously correct. We th erefore affirm. Plaintiff, be ing the prevailing party, may tax costs. MCR 7.219(A).

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause