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

This case involves a divorce between the Wellmans, who separated after three years of marriage and had two young children. The plaintiff father appealed the trial court's custody decision, which granted the parties joint legal custody but awarded primary physical custody to the defendant mother with specific visitation for the plaintiff. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not against the great weight of the evidence and that it did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error. The court reasoned that the parties' inability to cooperate supported denying joint physical custody under the Child Custody Act's best-interest factors, while evidence showed they could share decision-making authority for joint legal custody, and no statutory presumption favored joint physical custody.

family law

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by the representative of a deceased patient's estate against two public hospitals for alleged negligence in treatment, diagnosis, and discharge. The trial court dismissed the claims against the hospitals on grounds of governmental immunity, and the appellate court affirmed those dismissals. The court reasoned that under Michigan Supreme Court precedents like Ross and Hyde, the operation of public general hospitals is a governmental function not subject to tort liability for negligence, and the hospitals' activities did not qualify as proprietary functions conducted primarily for profit. The court also upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add breach of contract claims, finding the proposed amendments futile due to the absence of a qualifying written contract and the applicability of immunity.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a 16-year-old defendant charged with multiple felonies including assault with intent to murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm after forcing entry into a restaurant at gunpoint, herding employees into an office, and discharging a sawed-off shotgun that wounded two people during a robbery. The Wayne County Probate Court, Juvenile Division, waived jurisdiction to circuit court for adult proceedings after hearings on probable cause and the statutory waiver factors, but the circuit court later reversed the waiver; on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order, reinstated the waiver, and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court reasoned that the probate court had properly considered all five statutory criteria under MCL 712A.4(4) without giving preeminence to any one, including the seriousness of the premeditated offenses, the defendant's emotional immaturity and sociopathic traits, the lack of suitable juvenile programs, and the need for public protection given the low likelihood of rehabilitation before age nineteen, and found no error in the waiver or in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and rejection of the ineffective-assistance claim.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

In this case, plaintiff Lim sued the Michigan Department of Transportation in Wayne Circuit Court under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, alleging that the department's relocation of his gas station driveway as part of a road-widening project amounted to a de facto taking of his property without just compensation. The department moved for summary disposition, arguing that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's denial of the motion, holding that inverse condemnation actions are claims ex contractu arising from an implied constitutional contract, and thus fall exclusively under the Court of Claims' jurisdiction. The court reasoned that no statute, including the UCPA, expressly confers jurisdiction on circuit courts for inverse condemnation suits initiated by property owners, as the UCPA governs only agency-initiated condemnations.

propertyprocedure

This case is a medical malpractice action brought by the personal representative of decedent Delores M. Flowers against Southwest Detroit Hospital and several doctors, alleging negligent failure to diagnose and treat kidney cancer that led to her death in 1981. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice after the plaintiff did not produce expert witnesses for deposition within the 75-day period set by a June 1985 discovery order. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that under MCR 2.313(B)(2) the trial court must consider on the record all available sanctions short of dismissal, explain why dismissal is the just option, and impose appropriate sanctions only after that analysis.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a defendant's conviction after a bench trial on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, where the defense claimed the acts were consensual following a prior romantic relationship with the complainant. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to introduce evidence of that prior sexual relationship solely due to noncompliance with the rape shield statute's ten-day notice requirement, without holding an in-camera hearing. On appeal, the court held that the notice provision is unconstitutional when applied to bar evidence of specific prior sexual conduct between the defendant and complainant, as it serves no useful purpose in this context and the evidence was relevant to the consent defense. The court distinguished the facts from a prior Supreme Court decision and noted that exclusion was not based on standard evidentiary considerations of materiality or prejudice. The conviction was therefore reversed and the case remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her infant daughter under Michigan probate law after the child was placed in foster care due to the mother's inability to care for her. The probate court terminated the rights based on the mother's long-term schizophrenia and related impairments, citing statutory provisions allowing termination for mental illness preventing proper care for over two years with no reasonable expectation of improvement, as well as the child's extended time in foster care. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that testimony from one of the mother's treating psychiatrists was improperly admitted in violation of the psychiatrist-patient privilege, as it was not covered by exceptions in the Child Protection Law. However, the court found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other evidence, including testimony from additional witnesses about the mother's marginal functioning and inability to care for herself or the child, provided clear and convincing support for termination. The court affirmed the probate court's order making the child a permanent ward of the court.

family lawprocedure

In Miller v. Van Kampen, a dispute arose between the land contract vendor and vendee over the application of fire insurance proceeds following damage to a multiple-unit dwelling in Detroit. The plaintiff vendee sought to use the funds for repairs, while the defendant vendor argued they should reduce the contract balance. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the contract terms requiring the vendee to maintain insurance and keep the property in good repair implied an agreement to apply proceeds to actual repairs when the vendee is not in default. The court distinguished prior precedents and found no material factual issues requiring trial.

property

In Harris v. Lemicex, a passenger injured in a rear-end bus collision sued the driver and related parties for damages under Michigan's no-fault insurance law, claiming her back, neck, and related injuries met the statutory threshold of serious impairment of an important body function. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment, finding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, determining that medical reports documenting objective muscle spasms, strains, and limited mobility, combined with the plaintiff's affidavit describing impacts on daily activities such as cooking and housekeeping, created a triable issue on whether the impairment seriously affected her ability to lead a normal life. The court applied criteria from prior precedent requiring an important body function, objective manifestation, and sufficient seriousness, while noting the showing was marginal but adequate to defeat the motion.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Jones, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of felony-firearm possession for shooting and killing her former husband and his girlfriend at a bar. She appealed, arguing that the evidence established sufficient provocation to reduce the convictions to voluntary manslaughter and that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving her normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt after she raised a diminished capacity defense. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant's emotional upset did not constitute the heat of passion required for manslaughter and that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence of specific intent presented in its case in chief was sufficient to establish normal capacity. The court rejected the claim that the trial judge had improperly shifted the burden of proof on the diminished capacity issue.

criminal law

In Lawrence v. Lawrence, the dispute arose from a 1980 divorce judgment that awarded the defendant a $22,450 lien on the marital home, payable after four years or upon certain triggering events such as sale of the home. The plaintiff failed to pay by the 1983 deadline and sold the home in 1984, leading the defendant to seek 12% interest on the overdue sum under Michigan's judgment interest statute, MCL 600.6013. The circuit court awarded interest for the overdue period only. On appeal, the court held that the statute does not apply to property divisions in divorce judgments, as they are not money judgments in a civil action, but that trial courts retain equitable discretion to award interest on overdue amounts from divorce decrees. The court affirmed the award as a valid exercise of that discretion.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, plaintiff Devault sought disability benefits after being assaulted at his workstation in a General Motors plant by a co-employee, Ralph Miller, who was the husband of Devault's ex-wife; the assault stemmed from a dispute over child support and employee benefits for dental care. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board denied benefits, finding that the injuries did not arise out of employment under Michigan law. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the injury was compensable because the underlying dispute involved workplace benefits and the employer's inadequate security measures allowed the assailant unauthorized access to the plant, enabling the surprise attack at the work station. The court emphasized that the work environment brought the employee within the peril and exacerbated the harm when Devault fell and struck his head on the concrete floor.

labor & employment

This case involved competing claims to ownership of a 1963 AC Cobra sports car: Wolfe sold the vehicle to Sports Cars of Birmingham with a retained lien but received only partial payment, after which Sports Cars sold it to Whitcraft; defaults were entered against Sports Cars, leading to orders returning the car to Wolfe, while Whitcraft sought declaratory relief asserting he was a buyer in the ordinary course who received good title. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Whitcraft, ordering Wolfe to endorse the title and extinguish his security interest. The Court of Appeals set aside that order and remanded, holding that proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of title effects a valid transfer of ownership under the Michigan Vehicle Code even if odometer disclosure requirements were not met (making the transaction voidable rather than void), and that further proceedings were needed to resolve the claims without Sports Cars as a party.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Dowling v. Auto Club Casualty Insurance, an automobile mechanic sought no-fault personal injury protection benefits under his wife's insurance policy after inhaling exhaust fumes at work that caused dizziness, nausea, and ongoing symptoms. The insurer denied the claim under MCL 500.3106(2) because the injury occurred during employment where workers' compensation was available, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on that basis. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was engaged in mechanical work on a vehicle when injured while walking to retrieve parts, and that the injury arose from maintenance of another vehicle rather than its use or operation. The court broadly interpreted the statutory term "doing mechanical work" in light of the provision's purpose to avoid duplicating workers' compensation benefits, and noted the statute's distinction between "maintenance" and "use or operation" of a second vehicle.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability