Yudashkin v. Linzmeyer

• Decision Date: 12 December 2001
• Docket Number: Docket No. 220510.
• Citation: 247 Mich. App. 642,637 N.W.2d 257
• Parties: Robert YUDASHKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. LINZMEYER, Defendant, and Craig Holden and Master Home Inspector, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

637 N.W.2d 257

247 Mich. App. 642

Robert YUDASHKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. LINZMEYER, Defendant, and Craig Holden and Master Home Inspector, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 220510.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 11, 2001, at Lansing.

Decided September 28, 2001, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication December 12, 2001.

Osetek & Associates, P.C. (by Peter J. Osetek and Jean M. Rosella), Ann Arbor, for Robert Yudashkin.

Vercruysse Metz & Murray, P.C. (by James E. Roach), Bingham Farms, for Craig Holden and Master Home Inspector, Inc.

Before: MARK J. CAVANAGH, P.J., and MARKEY and COLLINS, JJ.

MARKEY, J.

Defendants Craig Holden and Master Home Inspector, Inc., (MHI) appeal by leave granted the trial court's orders denying their motions for summary disposition and for reconsideration, which primarily asserted that an amended complaint filed against them was untimely. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant MHI is a Michigan corporation in the business of conducting residential home inspections. Defendant Holden is both the president of MHI and an MHI home inspector. On February 5, 1997, Holden inspected a house for plaintiff Robert Yudashkin. This lawsuit arises from plaintiff's claim that MHI failed to discover a defect in the basement walls of the house plaintiff subsequently purchased from defendant David Linzmeyer.¹ Specifically, plaintiff's complaint filed on February 5, 1998, alleged that defendants had breached their contract with plaintiff and violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (CPA), M.C.L. § 445.901 et seq.

In a subsequent motion for summary disposition, defendants argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was limited to $200 by the liquidated damages provision of the inspection contract. Because the amount of the liquidated damages on which the parties agreed is less than $25,000, defendants argue this case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court under M.C.L. § 600.8301. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the CPA. The trial court granted defendants' motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), finding it had no subject-matter jurisdiction with respect to the breach of contract claim because the liquidated damages clause in the contract limited damages to $200. The trial court also granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because plaintiff failed to state a claim under the CPA. The court concluded that the allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint essentially dealt with alleged defective performance of contractual obligations rather than any deceptive or unfair trade practice prohibited by the CPA. The trial court acknowledged, however, that although a violation might exist under the CPA for common-law fraud, plaintiff did not specifically plead that claim. Consequently, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendants. The court further allowed that if plaintiff were to file a more specific pleading setting forth viable misrepresentation claims, the court would then have jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the trial court's scheduling order, plaintiff was allowed to file an amended complaint against defendants and did so on January 15, 1999, asserting theories not previously considered. The amended complaint alleged with specificity that defendants' representations constituted unfair trade practices of misrepresentation or fraud in violation of the CPA and the common-law tort of fraud.

In another motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), defendants asserted that plaintiff's claims were barred by the one-year limitation period set forth in the inspection contract or, alternatively, that plaintiff failed to state a claim of common-law fraud. Regarding defendants' assertion that plaintiff's claims were untimely, the trial court denied defendants' motion, finding that MCR 2.118(D) provides that an amendment dates back to the date of the original pleading where the asserted claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as that of the original pleading. Alternatively, the court concluded that plaintiff's misrepresentation allegations had been sufficiently pleaded so as to adequately state a claim of common-law fraud.

Defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration, arguing that the relation-back doctrine stated in MCR 2.118(D) does not extend to the addition of new parties. Under defendants' theory, because defendants were dismissed previously from this lawsuit, they were no longer parties to the action when plaintiff filed his amended complaint. Thus, the claims alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint were still untimely. Nonetheless, the trial court determined that defendants had failed to establish palpable error and denied their motion. Thereafter, defendants filed an application for leave to appeal the trial court's order denying their second motion for summary disposition. This Court reversed the trial court's decision to deny defendants' motion and remanded the case to the circuit court with directions to grant defendants' motion.² In its order, this Court concluded that the relation-back doctrine did not govern the case and that, in any event, the doctrine does not extend to the addition of new parties. Thus, this Court found that plaintiff's claims were barred by the one-year period of limitation provided for by the contract between the parties.

Plaintiff then sought leave to appeal to our Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave, our Supreme Court vacated this Court's order and remanded the matter to this Court for plenary consideration.³ The Supreme Court also ordered:

On remand, the Court of Appeals is to consider the effect of MCR 2.604(A) and MCR 2.116(I)(5) on defendants' argument that plaintiff's amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original complaint under MCR 2.118(D).

II. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES

Defendants argue that the trial court erred in holding that plaintiff's amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint because the relation-back doctrine in MCR 2.118(D) does not apply to new parties. Specifically, defendants assert that they were completely dismissed from the lawsuit after the trial court granted their first motion for summary disposition; consequently MCR 2.118(D) is inapplicable because at the time plaintiff filed his amended complaint, defendants were no longer parties to plaintiff's action, and MCR 2.118(D) does not apply to the addition of new parties. Thus, because the relation-back doctrine does not apply, defendants reason that plaintiff cannot rely on it to avoid defendants' statute of limitations defense.

We disagree with defendants and conclude that this Court erred in its previous order; plaintiff's amended complaint should and does relate back to the date of plaintiff's original pleading. The question regarding whether an amendment relates back to the original complaint presents an issue of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Doyle v. Hutzel Hosp., 241 Mich.App. 206, 212, 615 N.W.2d 759 (2000). Further, this Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998).

MCR 2.118(D)⁴ provides:

Except to demand a trial by jury under MCR 2.508, an amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth, or attempted to be set forth, in the original pleading.

Defendants are correct that the relation-back doctrine does not extend to the addition of new parties. Hurt v. Michael's Food Center, Inc., 220 Mich.App. 169, 179, 559 N.W.2d 660 (1996); Employers Mut. Casualty Co. v. Petroleum Equipment, Inc., 190 Mich.App. 57, 63, 475 N.W.2d 418 (1991). But defendants' argument that because they were no longer parties to this lawsuit after their dismissal, their return to the lawsuit by way of the amended complaint makes them "new parties," does not persuade us. Under the facts of this case and pursuant to MCR 2.604(A), the grant of summary disposition was not a final judgment.

MCR 2.604(A) provides in part:

[A]n order or other form of decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims, or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order is subject to revision before entry of final judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

We were unable to find any cases interpreting whether MCR 2.604(A) mandates that in an action involving multiple claims or multiple parties the dismissal of all claims against a single party does not dismiss that party from the action and further mandates that the party remain a party until a final judgment resolves all claims of all parties.

The rules governing the interpretation of statutes apply with equal force to the interpretation of court rules. Colista v. Thomas, 241 Mich.App. 529, 535, 616 N.W.2d 249 (2000). This Court has recognized that if the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of a statute is clear, judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted. Heinz v. Chicago Rd. Investment Co., 216 Mich.App. 289, 295, 549 N.W.2d 47 (1996). Furthermore, unless explicitly defined in a statute, "every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used." Michigan State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Director, Dep't of Labor, 241 Mich.App. 406, 411, 616 N.W.2d 697 (2000).

According the language in MCR 2.604(A) its plain meaning, we conclude that because the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendants on the claims asserted in the original complaint did not end this lawsuit, it was not a...