Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Inv., Inc.

Decision Date30 July 2013
Docket NumberDocket No. 309743.
Citation302 Mich.App. 59,836 N.W.2d 898
PartiesBELLEVUE VENTURES, INC v. MORANG–KELLY INVESTMENT, INC.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Sitto Law, PLLC, Oak Park (by Brent F. Sitto and Timothy Mulligan), for plaintiff.

Chasnick Terrasi, PLLC, Novi (by David A. Chasnick and Margaret S. Terrasi), for defendant.

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and FITZGERALD and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J.

Defendant appeals by right the circuit court order awarding plaintiff $90,336.84, for unjust enrichment. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff, Bellevue Ventures, Inc., doing business as Metro Equipment, Inc., is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of purchasing, refurbishing, and selling used equipment. Defendant, Morang–Kelly Investment, Inc., doing business as Farmer's Best, is a Michigan corporation engaged in the supermarket business.

In April of 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that it had entered into a contract for the sale and installation of used supermarket refrigeration equipment at defendant's Wyoming Street location in Detroit with a person named Mike Awdish; however, defendant had ceased making payments on the equipment with an outstanding balance of $95,700 that remained to be paid. At a bench trial on the matter, defendant asserted that the equipment was faulty and had cost defendant tens of thousands of dollars in lost product and repair costs, that defendant was not a party to the contract at issue because Awdish was not an authorized agent of defendant, and that Awdish had merely given the equipment to defendant.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court issued an oral opinion awarding plaintiff $90,336.84. In support of this award, the trial court ruled that although there was no written contract between the parties, an informal agreement existed between plaintiff and Awdish. The court further ruled that Awdish either was or held himself out to be defendant's agent and that the equipment was still in use by defendant and defendant would be unjustly enriched if it did not perform its side of the agreement. The trial court arrived at the award by using the contract price and offsetting the amount actually paid to plaintiff, as well as giving credit to defendant for repair expenses incurred within a reasonable time after purchase.

II. ANALYSIS

First, defendant argues that the trial court erred by striking defendant's countercomplaint, amended answers, and amended affirmative defenses. We agree, but find the error harmless. We review a lower court's striking of a pleading for an abuse of discretion. Jordan v. Jarvis, 200 Mich.App. 445, 452, 505 N.W.2d 279 (1993).

At the time defendant's pleadings were struck, MCR 2.107(G) provided that [t]he filing of all pleadings and other papers with the court as required by [the court] rules must be with the clerk of the court....” 1 Further, [i]t is the responsibility of the party who presented the papers to confirm that they have been filed with the clerk.” Id.

Plaintiff moved to strike defendant's countercomplaint, amended answers, and amended affirmative defenses after they failed to appear in either the register of actions or the physical case file. Defendant presented to the trial court copies of the pleadings, all of which contained a time-stamp from the Wayne County Clerk's Office, and established that a third-party summons concerning the pleadings had been issued by the clerk; however, the trial court struck the pleadings on the basis of defendant's failure to ensure that they had been filed with the clerk pursuant to MCR 2.107(G).

On appeal, defendant asserts that it did everything required under the court rules to ensure that the documents in question were filed, and that the trial court abused its discretion by granting plaintiff's motion to strike. We agree. The court rule provides that [i]t is the responsibility of the party who presented the materials to confirm that they have been filed with the clerk.” MCR 2.107(G). The rule does not, however, require that the party who presented the materials to the clerk confirm that the clerk subsequently filed the materials in the physical file or included them in the register of actions. Accordingly, we hold that proof of filing with the clerk, and not proof of filing by the clerk, is sufficient to establish compliance with MCR 2.107(G). We further hold that the presentation of time-stamped copies to the trial court constitutes proof of such compliance, and plaintiff's motion to strike should have been denied.

Despite this error, however, the trial court's erroneous grant of plaintiff's motion to strike was rendered harmless by the fact that the trial court permitted defendant to pursue the substance of the stricken defenses and counterclaim throughout trial. In those documents, defendant had asserted that any alleged breach was justified by the fact that plaintiff had supplied defendant with defective merchandise and that defendant had incurred substantial costs while repairing those defects. At trial, significant portions of testimony and argument were devoted to the state of the equipment sold to defendant by plaintiff. In fact, at the conclusion of trial, the trial court ordered an offset to the amount awarded to plaintiff to account for some of the repairs that defendant was required to pay for after purchasing the merchandise in question. Therefore, defendant suffered no prejudice and is not entitled to relief.

Additionally, defendant argues that the trial court erred by ruling that plaintiff had the legal capacity to file a lawsuit. We disagree. We review a trial court's decision on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion. Bartlett v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit, 149 Mich.App. 412, 418, 385 N.W.2d 801 (1986).

In the instant case, on the morning of trial, defendant made a motion in limine seeking dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action, arguing that all of the invoices and documents provided to defendant had been under the name of Metro Equipment, Inc., and that no such corporation existed. Accordingly, defendant argued that Metro Equipment, Inc. lacked the legal power to sue and that plaintiff's action must be dismissed, as plaintiff was holding itself out as Metro Equipment, Inc. The trial court rejected defendant's argument.

On appeal, defendant continues to assert that it was entitled to dismissal on the grounds that Metro Equipment, Inc. is not a valid corporation. Defendant fails to recognize, however, that the trial court awarded a judgment to plaintiff under a theory of unjust enrichment. The elements of a claim for unjust enrichment are (1) receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff, and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff from defendant's retention of the benefit. Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 437 Mich. 521, 546, 473 N.W.2d 652 (1991). In such instances, the law operates to imply a contract in order to prevent unjust enrichment. Martin v. East Lansing Sch. Dist., 193 Mich.App. 166, 177, 483 N.W.2d 656 (1992). However, a contract will be implied only if there is no express contract covering the same subject matter. Id.

Here, the record reflects that there was no express contract between the parties, and that defendant received a benefit from plaintiff in the form of refrigeration equipment, installation, and maintenance. The record also shows that plaintiff was not paid in full for those goods and services. Under these facts, inequity would result if plaintiff were allowed to retain the benefit of the unpaid goods and services, and these facts alone are sufficient to establish both a theory of unjust enrichment and, by extension, plaintiff's capacity to recover damages. Therefore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Cordts v. Griffis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 16, 2020
    ...party receives a benefit from another, and retention of that benefit causes some inequity. Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Inv., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 59, 64, 836 N.W.2d 898, 901 (2013) (citing Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 437 Mich. 521, 546, 473 N.W.2d 652 (1991)). When unjust enr......
  • Deceased v. Creative Techniques, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • October 18, 2018
    ...and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff from defendant's retention of the benefit." Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Inv., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 59, 64, 836 N.W.2d 898, 901 (2013) (citing Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 437 Mich. 521, 546, 473 N.W.2d 652 (1991)). "In such instances,......
  • Marshall v. City of Farmington Hills, 13-2011
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 27, 2014
    ...for reversal unless it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative); Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Inv., Inc., 836 N.W.2d 898, 901 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (finding that the failure of the court clerk to file documents, resulting in an erroneous order to strike......
  • Daneshvar v. Kipke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 19, 2017
    ...and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff from defendant's retention of the benefit." Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang–Kelly Inv., Inc. , 302 Mich.App. 59, 64, 836 N.W.2d 898, 901 (2013). According to Daneshvar, when NeuroNexus was acquired by Greatbatch, Defendants benefitted from a high......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT