Roman S. Gribbs

The case concerned Foodland Distributors' efforts to collect nearly $698,000 owed for unpaid grocery products supplied to Metropolitan Grocery, Inc. (New Metro) by reaching the personal assets of Amir Al-Naimi, Sandra Al-Naimi, and Atour Abro. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the corporate veil should be pierced, permitting recovery from the individual defendants. The court applied a three-part test requiring that the corporation be a mere instrumentality of the individuals, used to commit a fraud or wrong, and that this caused an unjust loss to the plaintiff. It found abundant evidence that New Metro served as Amir's alter ego, including an unexplained near-total inventory shortage, sudden cessation of payments amid personal debt restructuring, and the assumption of substantial debt without consideration. The decision rested on de novo review of the equitable remedy and the full spectrum of facts showing abuse of the corporate form.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Blackwell Ford, as sublessee, sought to enforce a 1987 option agreement to purchase commercial property from defendants Calhoun after the expiration of a prior lease and related right of first refusal held by Ford Leasing. The option was secured by a contemporaneous mortgage that protected the plaintiff's $175,000 payment and any contingent refund obligation, and the plaintiff attempted to exercise it in June 1993 for $1,650,000. The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants, treating the option as the functional equivalent of a loan that violated the doctrine against clogging the equity of redemption. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the agreements constituted a valid option to purchase real property rather than a loan, that no clogging of redemption rights was possible under the structure of the transaction, and that the anti-clogging doctrine therefore did not bar enforcement.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the admissibility of a defendant's second custodial statement in a murder prosecution, where police did not inform him that an attorney hired by a third party was attempting to contact him during interrogation. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the statement was admissible and did not violate the defendant's rights under the Michigan Constitution. The majority distinguished the facts from People v Wright, noting the absence of coercive police conduct, the defendant's knowing and voluntary waivers of rights, and his cooperative demeanor, and instead followed the reasoning of the dissent in Wright along with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Moran v Burbine. It declined to require police to interrupt questioning to relay information about counsel's efforts when the defendant had not requested an attorney.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a former employee's lawsuit against her employer, a parking violation collection company, and its managers, alleging sex discrimination under the Michigan Civil Rights Act after her position was eliminated and she was offered a lower-paying role, along with claims of wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, tortious interference, and fraudulent conveyance. The trial court granted partial summary disposition, dismissing the emotional distress and defamation claims but allowing the others to proceed, and declined to enter a default judgment despite discovery disputes. On appeal, the court reversed in part, holding that summary disposition should have been granted on the wrongful discharge and interference claims due to lack of factual support, but affirmed denial of summary disposition on the sex discrimination and fraudulent conveyance claims because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding pretext and creditor status under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. The court also upheld the trial court's discretion in refusing a default judgment, noting alternative sanctions had been applied.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dramshop action in which plaintiff Lisa Vander Bossche, injured in a car accident by an allegedly intoxicated driver, sued the driver and an unknown liquor establishment, later seeking to amend her complaint to name Valley Pub as the bar that served the driver. The trial court granted summary disposition to Valley Pub on the ground that it was not the actual liquor licensee, which was instead M & H Beverage, Inc., operating under the assumed name Valley Pub, and it had not resolved the separate question of whether the plaintiff complied with the 120-day notice requirement under the dramshop act. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff should be permitted to amend her complaint to name the correct licensee because the records reflected the assumed name and the amendment corrected a misnomer without frustrating the statute's purpose. The court remanded for the trial court to decide in the first instance whether the plaintiff could reasonably have identified the establishment within 120 days of retaining counsel, and it addressed related procedural issues concerning the "name and retain" requirement for the driver defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Westchester Fire Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for University Cellar, and Safeco Insurance Company, the no-fault insurer for the company car, over reimbursement for wage-loss and medical benefits paid to an employee injured in a work-related automobile accident. After a workers' compensation magistrate determined the injuries were employment-related, Safeco sought reimbursement from Westchester in circuit court. The trial court granted summary disposition to Safeco for $57,000 in benefits plus interest. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the one-year limitations period under the no-fault act did not bar the reimbursement claim and that Westchester's tender of a check did not halt interest accrual because it failed to comply with MCR 2.620 and no judgment had yet been entered.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure