Now Accepting New Clients!

A plaintiff who disputed his student loan obligations due to the defense of infancy, was precluded from bringing a second action regarding the same claim when his first action failed

The court held that the Court of Claims did not err by granting the defendant-university's motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata. The court noted that plaintiff's state claims were "a mere repackaging of" his federal claims. "Although plaintiff's current claims view his challenge of the contract through a negligence framework, the essential ingredient in every one of plaintiff's claims is that he was unable to contract due to his infancy at the time he signed the promissory note for the purposes of his federal educational loan. It is not dispositive that plaintiff argued in federal court that the contract was voidable due to infancy and in state court argued that the infancy precludes a finding of mutual assent to form a valid contract, because, as the Court of Claims concluded, the operative facts giving rise to all of plaintiff's claims occurred in the spring of 2004 when he signed the loan documents." Further, to the extent that his claims differed "in any meaningful way, [he] has 'offered no justification for' his failure to bring the claims in the prior action." The Court of Claims "correctly concluded that plaintiff's knowledge of the present claims is irrelevant in determining whether he could have brought his claims in the prior action." Finally, the court found that "the federal court did assume jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims, which it justified by considering judicial efficiency and the fact that plaintiff's state-law claims would fail because" the HEA "preempts state-law infancy defenses." Thus, it was "unnecessary to consider whether the federal court would have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's current state-law claims." Further, the current claims were properly considered the same as the state-law claims asserted in the federal action for the purposes of res judicata, "and thus, because the federal district court has already adjudicated those claims on their merits, it would be counter to the fundamental principle" of res judicatato allow him to "relitigate claims actually litigated in a prior suit." Affirmed.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

Choosing the right executor for an estate

Originally posted on 05/28/2017 When people are thinking about planning their estate, they often think about trying to minimize the estate tax, keeping their will updated, and keeping items out of probate court; however, there is another...

Understanding how the Miranda warning works

Originally posted on 11/25/2016 Michigan residents who have seen television police shows or movies involving law enforcement have no doubt watched many dramatic scenes with officers quoting something to the effect of, "You have the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000