Court Opinion

ID: 9741555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:57:57.778027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.756658
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
I dissent. Today, the majority holds that the Court of Appeals improperly rejected existing Michigan precedent when it wrote Shield Benefit Administrators, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents.1 Shield Benefit adopted the Restatement on Restitution, § 14(1),2 ante at 436-437. The “precedent” *444referred to by the majority is Couper v Metropolitan Life Ins Co3 and Madden v Employers Ins of Wausau.4
However, these cases involved a different circumstance than exists either in Shield Benefit or in the case before us on appeal. Specifically, Couper and Madden involved a mistaken payment in a two-party situation. One party mistakenly paid money to the other. Shield Benefit, like this case, concerns a mistaken payment to a third-party creditor. One party mistakenly paid the creditor of another party. Because the factual settings in Couper and Madden are markedly different from those in Shield Benefit and the instant case, the holdings of the former do not bind the latter.
The majority rejects the principles embodied in Restatement, § 14. In so doing, it ignores this Court’s holding in Walker v Conant.5 Although Walker is a very old case, its holding, which enunciates principles consistent with Restatement, § 14, remained good law until today. It bound the Court in Shield Benefit. Thus, contrary to the majority’s assertion, the decision in Shield Benefit did follow prior Michigan precedent when it adopted the Restatement on Restitution, § 14.
*445The majority should have addressed Walker. If appropriate, it should have attempted to distinguish it. In any event, it should have provided a stare deci-sis analysis justifying this Court’s departure from it.
Because the rejection of precedent involves a juris-prudentially significant matter, the Court should have granted leave here.

 225 Mich App 467; 571 NW2d 556 (1997).

 Restatement Restitution, § 14(1), p 55, provides:
*444A creditor of another or one having a lien on another’s property who has received from a third person any benefit in discharge of the debt or lien, is under no duty to make restitution therefor, although the discharge was given by mistake of the transferor as to his interests or duties, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the transferor’s mistake.

 250 Mich 540, 544; 230 NW 929 (1930).

 168 Mich App 33, 40; 424 NW2d 21 (1988).

 69 Mich 321; 37 NW 292 (1888).