Now Accepting New Clients!

PROBATE 42: The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff-PR’s fraud and conversion action on the basis that it was barred by a prior judgment.

Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging statutory and common law conversion. In July 2018, a global settlement was reached as to the various matters pending in the probate court. Relevant to this appeal, Plaintiff’s conversion claims against Defendant were dismissed with prejudice. All of the heirs to the estate or their attorneys consented to the settlement agreement and were present for the hearing where it was read into the record. An order regarding the settlement was entered in August 2018. In January 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action as personal representative. The complaint alleged statutory and common law conversion on the basis of Defendant’s withdrawals from the joint savings account, and also claimed fraud for Defendant’s alleged actions that removed a block on the account. In lieu of filing an answer, Defendant  moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that the estate was barred from relitigating issues and claims resolved by the 2018 settlement agreement. The circuit court later issued an opinion and order granting Defendant’s summary disposition. Having reviewed the probate court hearing and order containing the terms of the 2018 settlement agreement, the circuit court concluded that the estate’s claims were barred by res judicata.


On appeal, the estate argues that res judicata does not preclude the present action because the estate’s interests are distinct from the parties who entered into the 2018 settlement agreement.  The doctrine of res judicata is employed to prevent multiple suits litigating the same cause of action. The doctrine bars a second, subsequent action when (1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first. We review de novo a circuit court’s decision to grant summary disposition under MCR2.116(C)(7). There is no dispute that the 2018 settlement dismissing Plaintiff’s conversion claims against Defendant was a decision on the merits. Nor does the estate dispute that its instant claims were or could have been resolved in the 2018 case. Thus, the question in this case is whether the second element of res judicata is satisfied. The estate was not a party to the prior action and so we must determine whether privity exists in this case. All those with an interest in the estate were aware of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant and agreed to resolve that dispute as part of the global settlement. In sum, as it pertains to the claims against Defendant, the estate itself has no interest distinct from the combined interests of those who consented to the 2018 settlement agreement. For these reasons, we conclude that the estate was adequately represented in the prior action.

Facing Probate and Estate Administration

If you have lost a loved one, the last thing you should have to deal with at this time is the confusing and often frustrating process of probate.

Aldrich Legal Services offers comprehensive guidance throughout the probate process, including the filing of petitions, notices to creditors, distribution of assets to beneficiaries and other services required throughout the probate process. We offer probate services for clients whose loved ones died with or without a will.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

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