Court Opinion

ID: 9894806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 05:09:01.123481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:46.217216
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

STAN SHELBY,                                                         UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     November 2, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 363657
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
KRISTAL PATTERSON,                                                   LC No. 20-001647-AV

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and BORRELLO and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

      Defendant Kristal Patterson appeals from an order of the circuit court setting aside a
judgment on appeal from the district court and reinstating the appeal.1 We reverse.

        This case began as an eviction action in district court regarding an upper level rental unit
at 4227 Cortland Street in Detroit. Plaintiff leased the property to defendant in August 2019 on a
month-to-month basis requiring defendant to pay the monthly rental rate, security deposit, and
establish accounts with DTE Energy for gas and electricity. Defendant only paid plaintiff $600 of
the $1150 for first month’s rent and security deposit when she assumed occupancy and failed to
pay rent or utilities after moving in. Defendant refused to pay because she claimed the property

1
  The designation of the parties in this case is somewhat confused. This case was originated in
district court by Stan Shelby as plaintiff and Kristal Patterson as defendant. And that is how they
are identified in the district court’s judgment. Patterson had filed a counterclaim in district court
and identified her as “counter-claimant” and Shelby as “counter-defendant,” although not in the
judgment. For reasons unclear to us, in the appeal to circuit court the case became styled as
“Kristal Patterson v Stan Shelby,” with Patterson initially designated as
“Appellant/Defendant/Counter-Claimant” and Shelby as “Appellee/Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.”
And the circuit court’s order setting aside the judgment on appeal and reinstating the appeal merely
designated Patterson as the plaintiff and Shelby as the defendant. Because this case has its origins
in the judgment of the district court, and that judgment simply designated Shelby as plaintiff and
Patterson as defendant, they are so designated in this appeal.

                                                -1-
was uninhabitable; defendant testified that she told plaintiff about sewage in the basement, busted
pipes, no gas or hot water, and no heat between September 2019 and January 2020, but plaintiff
never repaired the boiler or pipes. Plaintiff denied that defendant indicated any dissatisfaction in
the condition of the premises. Plaintiff filed a Notice to Quit in October 2019 due to defendant’s
nonpayment, and he filed the summons and complaint to evict defendant in 36th District Court
shortly thereafter. With her answer, defendant filed an affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction
and a multi-count counterclaim alleging violations of MCL 554.139 (covenant of habitability),
MCL 600.2918 (anti-lockout provision), MCL 125.536 (Michigan housing act), and MCL 445.903
(Michigan Consumer Protection Act), as well as breach of the right of beneficial enjoyment of the
premises claiming she had no heat for 101 days.

        Following a bench trial, the district court issued a written opinion making findings of fact
and conclusions of law, ruling in favor of plaintiff on both the original complaint and defendant’s
counterclaim. Defendant filed a claim of appeal with the circuit court on February 3, 2020.
Defendant’s new counsel served the claim of appeal on plaintiff and his trial counsel on February
3, 2020 by first class mail to their addresses of record in the 36th District Court register of actions
for case 19367796-LT. On June 1, 2020, the circuit court dismissed the appeal for “[n]o activity
in compliance with the Michigan Court Rules.” Thereafter, defendant moved for the appeal to be
reinstated, and the circuit court granted her request. Without a hearing, the circuit court thereafter
granted the appeal, reversed the district court for “the reasoning and conclusions stated in
Appellant’s Brief on Appeal,” and awarded a judgment to defendant on her counterclaim in the
amount of $20,200 under MCL 600.2918(2)(f),2 representing “$200 per day for the period in which
heat was required but not provided.” Defendant thereafter attempted to collect on the judgment,
apparently without success.

        At the hearing on defendant’s motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for not appearing at a
creditor’s exam, the circuit court explained how the judgment for defendant was entered without
a hearing; apparently, because plaintiff never filed a response to the appeal, the circuit court

2
    MCL 600.2918(2)(f) provides:
         Any tenant in possession of premises whose possessory interest has been
         unlawfully interfered with by the owner is entitled to recover the amount of his or
         her actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, for each occurrence and, if
         possession has been lost, to recover possession. Subject to subsection (3), unlawful
         interference with a possessory interest includes 1 or more of the following:

                                                ***

         (f) Causing, by action or omission, the termination or interruption of a service
         procured by the tenant or that the landlord is under an existing duty to furnish,
         which service is so essential that its termination or interruption would constitute
         constructive eviction, including heat, running water, hot water, electric, or gas
         service.

                                                 -2-
granted defendant’s requested relief without reading the district court transcript or any of the
pleadings:
       THE COURT: Okay—I don't—all I wanna know is what transpired when the
                  claim of appeal was filed.

                                                ***

       THE COURT: Okay, but tell me how did we get to the judgment? Because they
                  didn't respond to the appeal—

                                                ***

       THE COURT: Okay. All right, so, like I said, if there was no response, I do not
                  read pleadings. I have a thousand cases. So, if there was no
                  response, I did not read the pleadings. So, that's what I was trying
                  to get to. No, I have no knowledge of what was in the transcript,
                  no knowledge of what Judge Robinson's ruling was because there
                  was no basis to go forward because there was no response and I
                  just granted the relief. So, know, I did not review. This was not
                  based upon the Court reviewing the file, reviewing the lower court
                  order, reviewing the transcript because there was—and this
                  Court's mind, because of the fact that there was no response, there
                  was no need to so the Court granted the relief. So, no, the Court
                  did not. Even it may have been provided, presented, the whole
                  nine yards, because of the fact that there was—there was no
                  response. (8/26/2022 cir ct hearing Tr, pp 24-25.)

        On September 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment in favor of
defendant. The circuit court held a hearing on October 14, 2022, and granted the motion. The
hearing started with the circuit court stating that it was granting the motion to set aside the
judgment and schedule a hearing on the appeal itself. Defendant’s attorney then requested to know
the court rule on which the circuit court was relying. The circuit court indicated that it was relying
on MCR 2.612(C)(3). The court then elaborated that “this is a court—and this is a court of equity
and the Court will do equity. So, we’ll at least hear the appeal on the merits.” The court also
affirmed that it was solely relying upon MCR 2.612(C)(3) and no other section. Defense counsel
then raised the point that MCR 2.612(C)(3) requires an independent lawsuit, citing several cases
from this Court. The circuit court rejected this argument, stating:

       THE COURT: And, like I said, additionally, the Court, in addition to that, this is
                  a court of equity and I said additionally. In addition, this is a court
                  of equity and the Court is going to do equity based—based on the
                  fact when the Court has had an opportunity to review the findings
                  of fact and conclusions of law, after the bench trial of the lower
                  court. The reason why the Court did not do that in the first
                  instance was the Court based its finding on the fact that the—that
                  Mr. Shelby had not responded and then there's a question, in terms
                  of—and I know that time had elapsed but, in terms of exactly what

                                                 -3-
                         transpired, in terms of Mr. Shelby being notified and the Court,
                         based upon reading the—the findings of the lower court, that the
                         Court feels that the the judgment that was entered is not equitable,
                         based on what had transpired at the lower court. So, as I indicated,
                         I'm setting aside my judgment, based on, one, and you can, if you
                         wanna appeal it on the basis of the Court saying I don't need
                         another action, fine, but also the Court is basing this on the fact
                         that the Court has to do equity. This is a court of equity and, based
                         upon the Court's reading of the lower court's decision, the Court
                         is, at a minimum, going to allow this case to proceed and the Court
                         will have a hearing of the appeal on the merits and the Court will
                         issue a scheduling order next week. [10/14/22 cir ct hearing, pp
                         7-8.]

The circuit court went on to state:

       THE COURT: And—and I will and also, additionally, Mr. Conti, based on the
                  fraud on the Court because, you know, like I said, I reviewed the—
                  the order of the—after the hearing on the lower court and this is a
                  fraud. There's no basis why, at this juncture, the Court finds that,
                  you know, this Ms. Patterson is entitled to $20,000. So, based
                  upon the representation that was put before the Court at that time
                  and the Court not having a full picture, the Court does feel that it
                  is a fraud that was committed on the Court and, as I indicated, I
                  am setting aside the judgment, based upon the fact that the Court
                  also believes that there was a fraud committed because she is not
                  entitled to $20,000. [10/14/22 cir ct hearing, p 10.]

The court continued, opining as follows:

       THE COURT: At this juncture, what happened that—at the—the time that the
                  appeal was filed, there was a determination made that Mr. Shelby
                  had not responded and, by Mr. Shelby not responding, Ms.
                  Patterson and—or/and her counsel proffered to the Court that she
                  was locked out. There is, after reviewing the—the decision of the
                  lower court, the Court takes question to that. So, I don't—at this
                  juncture, I am not satisfied that she's even entitled to her statutory
                  lockout. So, no. So, I—the thing is was there a statutory lockout?
                  I don't think so. So, and the based upon what the lower Court said,
                  there probably was not a statutory lockout. So, she would not have
                  been entitled to the 20,000. So, that's the end of my argument.
                  You can file an order for–

                                               ***

       THE COURT: Thing is at the—at the lower court, like I said, at the lower court,
                  there was not a finding. That was not what the—that was not what

                                                 -4-
                          the trial Court asserted. The trial Court dismissed, if my memory
                          serves me correct, the trial Court dismissed her—all of our
                          counterclaims, all of the counterclaims and found a no cause of
                          action. That's what the lower Court found. So, if that was what
                          the Court found ... And then, just to arbitrarily submit that,
                          without—the Court is finding—yes. So, yes. So, at this point in
                          time, I'm setting aside the judgment. In terms of what Ms. Ms.
                          Patterson presented, yes, there was a fraud because there is no
                          basis for her to be entitled to the $20,000 because there was no
                          justification when the lower Court said that her counterclaims
                          were dismissed and there was a no cause of action.

The court did grant a stay to allow plaintiff to pursue this appeal.

        Error abounds in this case. But it is primarily error of the circuit court’s making.

       “‘A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.’ Pirgu v
United Servs Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269, 274; 884 NW2d 257 (2016). To the extent that this review
requires ‘[t]he construction and interpretation of court rule[s],’ this Court applies a de novo
standard of review. Barclay v Crown Bldg & Dev, Inc, 241 Mich App 639, 642; 617 NW2d 373
(2000).” Tindle v Legend Health, PLLC, ___Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No 360861,
April 20, 2023), slip op at 2.

         Initially, we are at a loss to understand the circuit court’s conclusion that a fraud was
committed upon the court or why the circuit court entered the October 1, 2022 order granting
defendant’s requested relief and effectively reversing the district court’s findings without reading
the district court transcripts or order. The circuit court had before it the entire record of the district
court action.3 This included a transcript of the district court bench trial at which several witnesses
testified, as well as the district court’s seven-page written opinion setting forth its findings of fact
and conclusions of law as to why it was denying defendant’s counterclaim. Unfortunately, the
answer is found in the circuit court’s admission at both the August 26 and October 14, 2022
hearings wherein the circuit court stated that “I have no knowledge of what was in the transcript,
no knowledge of what Judge Robinson's ruling was because there was no basis to go forward
because there was no response and I just granted the relief.” As indicated above, the circuit court
reiterated this point multiple times at the October 14, 2022 hearing.

        It is not appropriate for a circuit court when hearing an appeal from the district court to
reverse the district court without any substantive review of the district court decision and grant the
appellant’s requested relief merely because the appellee did not file a responsive brief. As our
Supreme Court stated in People v Smith, 439 Mich 954; 480 NW2d 908 (1992):

               On order of the Court, the delayed application for leave to appeal is
        considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

3
  The circuit court register of actions reflects that the district court record was transmitted to the
circuit court on August 20, 2020, and the circuit court’s opinion was filed on October 1.

                                                   -5-
         we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment, 190 Mich App 352, 475
         NW2d 875, which reversed the defendant's convictions on the ground that the
         prosecution had confessed error by failing to file a brief or otherwise defend. A
         party who seeks to raise an issue on appeal but who fails to brief it may properly be
         considered to have abandoned the issue. Mitcham v City of Detroit, 355 Mich 182,
         203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). However, the failure of an appellee to file a responsive
         brief may not properly be considered to be a confession of substantive error.

Simply put, the circuit court was obligated to give plenary consideration to defendant’s appeal,
reviewing the arguments raised in light of the district court record before it. Summarily reversing
the district court because plaintiff failed to file a response was not an option.4 This is not the same
as entering a default against a defendant who does not answer a complaint. See MCR 2.603(A).

        The question before us is whether the circuit court could rectify its mistake by granting
plaintiff’s motion to set aside its earlier judgment on appeal. This question is problematic. Clearly,
the circuit court erred in its initial decision to grant defendant’s requested relief without giving
plenary consideration to the issues raised on appeal. But we are constrained to conclude that the
court rules did not permit the circuit court to grant plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment.

         Without a doubt, the circuit court based its decision on MCR 2.612(C)(3). It clearly stated
that at the October 14, 2022 hearing and also indicated that in its October 18, 2022 Order Setting
Aside Judgment and Reinstating Appeal:

                  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that after review of Defendant’s Motion to Set
         Aside Judgment and responsive pleadings, as well as the lower court’s findings of
         fact, this Court reverses its decision and finds no legal basis to support the money
         judgment of $20,000.00 in support of Plaintiff, Kristal Patterson. Therefore,
         pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(3)(B) [sic5], this Court moves [sic] to set aside the
         October 11, 2020 [sic6] Judgment of Appeal and Reinstate this matter for a
         determination on the merits.

MCR 2.612(C)(3) provides that “This subrule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an
independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; to grant relief to a
defendant not actually personally notified as provided in subrule (B); or to set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court.”

4
  We also question the propriety of the circuit court entering a judgment in defendant’s favor on
the counterclaim rather than reversing the district court, if the circuit court determined that the
district court erred, and directing the district court to enter judgment for defendant. It would then
follow that any collection proceedings would occur in district court rather than in circuit court as
happened here.
5
    There is no subsection (B) to MCR 2.612(C)(3).
6
    The Circuit Court Judgment on Appeal was entered on October 1, 2020, not October 11, 2020.

                                                 -6-
        A central issue here is whether MCR 2.612(C)(3) only applies to independent actions and
not motions to set aside a judgment. The circuit court believed that it was not constrained to only
apply this subrule where there is an independent action. But this Court has clearly stated in Kiefer
v Kiefer, 212 Mich App 176, 182; 536 NW2d 873 (1995), that MCR 2.612(C)(3) only applies to
independent actions:

                The language of MCR 2.612(C)(3) makes reference only to independent
        actions, not motions. We believe that a fair reading of subrule C(3) leads to the
        construction that the subrule does not extend the time to file a motion where fraud
        on the court is alleged, but, rather, provides that the time constraints of the rule do
        not apply to independent actions. In other words, the one-year time limit applies
        except when the plaintiff brings an independent action that claims either the
        plaintiff did not have actual notice or there was a fraud on the court. Inasmuch as
        there is an apparent split of authority, we believe the better reasoning is that the
        one-year period of limitation applies unless the claim is based on an independent
        action. [Citations omitted.]

The split of authority referenced by the Court was in two opinions released before November 1,
1990, and therefore not binding precedent. See MacArthur v Miltich, 110 Mich App 389; 313
NW2d 297 (1981), and Willey v Partridge, 37 Mich App 537; 195 NW2d 3 (1972). Kiefer resolved
the split of authority.

        Here, plaintiff did not file an independent action. And any motion for relief from judgment
based upon fraud needed to be filed within one year, MCR 2.612(C)(2), and more than one year
had elapsed. But this does not end the analysis. The circuit court based its conclusion upon a
finding of fraud, but it did not hold an evidentiary hearing. “Longstanding Michigan case law
requires that when a party makes a motion alleging that fraud has been committed on the court, an
evidentiary hearing is required.” Williams v Williams, 214 Mich App 391, 394; 542 NW2d 892
(1995).

        Furthermore, the circuit court made numerous references to it being a court of equity and
the need to do equity in this case. But equity is not an excuse for the court to act in contravention
of the court rules. See Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 590-591; 702 NW2d 539
(2005) (“Indeed, if a court is free to cast aside, under the guise of equity, a plain statute . . . simply
because the court views the statute as ‘unfair,’ then our system of government ceases to function
as a representative democracy. No longer will policy debates occur, and policy choices be made,
in the Legislature. Instead, an aggrieved party need only convince a willing judge to rewrite the
statute under the name of equity.”) In light of Kiefer, it is clear that MCR 2.612(C)(3) requires an
independent action.

        In sum, it is unfortunate that the circuit court’s mishandling of this appeal has deprived
plaintiff of plenary review of the appeal,7 but absent the filing of an independent action, it was not

7
  Plaintiff did not appeal to this Court of the original denial of the appeal to circuit court. Moreover,
it appears to be too late to file a delayed application for leave to appeal that ruling. See MCR
7.205(A)(4).

                                                   -7-
an option for the court to set aside its judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(3). The circuit court’s order
setting aside its original judgment is hereby reversed.

       Reversed. No costs.

                                                            /s/ Mark T. Boonstra
                                                            /s/ Stephen L. Borrello
                                                            /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

                                               -8-