Hill v. Walker
| Decision Date | 31 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: 13-CV-13097 |
| Parties | MERLIN HILL, Plaintiff, v. CAROL WALKER and FERRY WALKER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Merlin Hill brought this lawsuit in July 2013, alleging that his sister and her husband, Defendants, converted his property sometime in the late 1990s. (Docs. 1, 26.) Defendants have moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff offers only hearsay and other inadmissible evidence to support his claim and, thus, he cannot raise a material factual dispute. (Doc. 53 at 455, 460.) The Court agrees and recommends GRANTING Defendants' motion.
In 1997, Plaintiff was arrested for raping a minor and sentenced to life imprisonment the following year. (Doc. 53 at 458; Doc. 62 at 578); see also Hill v. Mississippi, No. 1:10-CV-22-SA-DAS, 2010 WL 3937967, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 10, 2010), vacated on other grounds, 459 F. App'x 365, 365 (5th Cir. 2012). His current claim stems from the fallout of his arrest, but his factual and legal arguments are often unclear. They are presented here largely as he made them,without significant interpretation or reconstruction, because under any reasonable reading they fail to present a material factual issue.1
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that after his arrest Defendants entered his residence under false claims that Carol Walker was his legal guardian and "took possession of and removed to their residence [in Michigan] . . . all of [Plaintiff's] personal and business property/effects against [Plaintiff's] expressly stated wishes." (Doc. 26 at 97.) As proof that Ms. Walker lacked guardianship over him, he offers a heavily redacted letter from another sister, Christina, who asserted that lawyers told her that she could not help Plaintiff "as long as Carol is your overseer." (Id., Ex. D at 104.) He also produces a letter from Ms. Walker, redacting all lines except for one that says she received his letters and another that states, "do what you want as for the guardian [sic] I dont [sic] care." (Id., Ex. E at 107.)
The complaint then jumps to 2011, when Plaintiff claims to have written Defendants requesting pictures of his 1970 Datsun, which they had kept for him. (Id. at 97.) They refused his request and cut off communications, according to Plaintiff. (Id.) He then contacted Clara Hill, his mother, asking for pictures of his car; she allegedly responded by informing him that Carol Walker told her that the car had caught on fire while Defendant Ferry Walker was working on it. (Id. at 98.) The evidence for that assertion is another attached letter with heavy redactions. (Id., Ex. F.) This one came from "Aunt Dee"; the unexcised portion begins by recommending that Plaintiff have Carol Walker take a picture of the car alongside a newspaper with the date visible. (Id., Ex. F. at 110-11.) Next, Aunt Dee reported Ms. Walker's statement that "she [Ms. Walker]still has [Plaintiff's] belongings but plans on either giving it [sic] away . . . or throw it all [sic] away or have a bonfire." (Id., Ex. F. at 113.) Aunt Dee also confirmed that Carol Walker told her about the car fire that occurred when Ferry Walker was making repairs that Plaintiff had requested. (Id.)
The story about the car fire sounds like so much nonsense to Plaintiff. (Id. at 98.) During his pre-arrest restoration of the car he had removed all flammable parts, so only a few items on the car could have been damaged "unless said fire came from the business end of an actelalene [sic] cutting tourch [sic]." (Id.) He soon heard from Denise Light that the story about the fire "was not entirely true"; but the new account Defendants were spinning sounded suspicious as well. (Id.) According to Ms. Light, Defendants now claimed that they had taken the car out of their pole barn and, while sitting outside, lightning struck it, setting it ablaze. (Id.) Hogwash, says Plaintiff: it is "nearly impossible" for cars to conduct lightning and, in any case, this car contained "nearly nothing flamible [sic]." (Id.) Shortly after relating this tale, Ms. Light sent another letter with yet another version of events. (Id.) Apparently Defendants had taken out insurance on the car, torched it, then collected the insurance money, "which they used for their own purposes." (Id.) As for his other property, they auctioned it and kept the proceeds "for their own use." (Id.) All that remained was his "250 plus year old violin, valued at $125,000." (Id.) Plaintiff provides none of Ms. Light's letters spelling out these hearsay statements.
In June 2011, Plaintiff received news of his violin. (Id.) Aunt Dee sent him a note—this one is attached as an exhibit—with dueling statements concerning the fate of his violin: (Id., Ex. G at 117.) Around this time, Plaintiff instructed Defendants "to transfercustodial control of all property belonging to [Plaintiff] to Christina Oakley, and specifically nam[ed] the violin and a deer mount (head) as part of the property to be transferred." (Id. at 99.)
The complaint then asserts that Plaintiff heard, from an unnamed source, that Ms. Walker was claiming that Plaintiff's estranged wife had taken many of his personal belongings in 1997, including the deer head mount. (Id.) This is another fabrication, Plaintiff gripes, adding that he has proof: he claims to possess "photographic evidence provided by Defendants in 2001" showing the deer head adorning their living room wall. (Id.) The photographs have not yet made an appearance in this case. Faced with more of the Defendants' stonewalling, Plaintiff asserts that he gave Christina Oakley "full written 'Power of Attorney,' with authorization to take immediate possession of, and remove to a secure location, all [of Plaintiff's] remaining business and personal property/effects." (Id.) Of course, "Defendants refused to comply." (Id.) And, of course, no documentary evidence of the power of attorney is provided.
The complaint also addresses, in a manner, the legal basis for Plaintiff's claim. It states that Defendants gained possession of his property "through fraudulent means (see Exhibit H) in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-165." (Id.) That statutory section provides for increased damage awards to "vulnerable adult[s]" in civil cases against individuals who, among other things, convert the plaintiff's property or gain consensual possession of it "by intimidation, deception, undue influence or by misusing a position of trust or a confidential relationship with the owner." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-165(1). Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants accomplished this, instead merely pointing to Exhibit H, a 2011 letter from his former attorney. (Id., Ex. H at 119.) In it, the attorney was apparently responding to Plaintiff's inquiry whether Carol Walker ever wielded a legal guardianship or conservatorship over Plaintiff after his arrest. The attorney could not recall any such device, but did remember "a Power of Attorney whichyour sister may have had to conduct your personal affairs while you are incarcerated." (Id.) The attorney had prepared a "Durable Power of Attorney" for Plaintiff in June 1998, but did not have a signed copy. (Id.) Plaintiff's complaint adds that he has received psychiatric treatment for paranoid schizophrenia and depression since 2001. (Id.)
In addition to violating the Mississippi statute, Plaintiff contends Defendants "were, and continue to be, willful [sic] and maliciously reckless in their disregard of [his] rights," causing him mental anguish and emotional distress. (Id.) He cites a string of Mississippi Supreme Court opinions2 dealing with punitive damages in either disability benefits or insurance cases. (Id.) He also defines "negligence"—without ever clearly alleging Defendants were negligent—and asks for damages pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-165 and $50,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 99-100.) Finally, he asserts that Defendants forged his signature on a quitclaim deed, granting themselves his fifty-percent interest in real property located in Michigan. (Id. at 122.) He cites a Michigan criminal statute as legal grounds for his claim. (Id. (citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.248-750.249).)
The Complaint then offers three different exhibits listing the property Defendants filched or destroyed. (Id., Exs. A-C at 101-03.) The first is entitled "Computer/Network Hardware" and lists nearly $50,000 in computer equipment, while the second describes "Computer/Network Software" of almost the same value. (Id., Ex. A-B at 101-02.) The final list contains his personalitems: the Datsun and accompanying parts, the deer mount, and the antique violin.3 (Id., Ex. C at 103.) Elsewhere, he claims that Defendants converted roughly $15,000 of other property after his arrest, when Ms. Walker fraudulently claimed to be his legal guardian. (Id. at 122.)
Defendants' motion to dismiss disputes many of Plaintiff's factual allegations. It states that after Plaintiff's arrest his family provided financial assistance. (Doc. 53 at 458.) For example, his mother co-signed for his attorney fees and, along with other family members, raised funds by selling some of his assets. (Id.) According to the mother's affidavit, they sold a lawn mower, Camaro, and motorcycle, among other items; Plaintiff's wife disposed of his horses and horse trailer. (Doc. 35 at 169-70.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff knew of the sale, attaching a letter from him to Carol Walker referencing a "garage sale" she conducted. (Doc. 53, Ex. A at 476.) The letter is undated.
In August 1998 Plaintiff granted Carol Walker a durable...
To continue reading
Request your trial