conversion claim in Michigan

2019See MCL 600.5805(2); Tillman v Great Lakes Truck Ctr, Inc, 277 Mich App 47, 49-50 ; 742 NW2d 622 (2007).

2019See MCL 600.5805(2); Tillman v Great Lakes Truck Ctr, Inc, 277 Mich App 47, 49-50 ; 742 NW2d 622 (2007).

2023Livonia, 276 Mich App at 519 (“If a defendant personally misappropriates funds after they are received by the corporation, he or she can be held personally responsible under the MBTFA.”) (citing Brown, 239 Mich App at 743 - 744). -9- STATUTORY CONVERSION Turning to the conversion claim, MCL 600.2919a provides as follows: (1) A person damaged as a result of either or both of the following may recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees: (a) Another person’s stealing or embezzling property or converting property to the other person’s own use. (

2018To prove statutory conversion, plaintiff had to show that Turner converted the property “to [his] own use.” Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc, 497 Mich 337, 357-359 ; 871 NW2d 136 (2015).

2017Tillman, 277 Mich App at 49 , citing Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co, 245 Mich App 156, 158 ; 626 NW2d 917 (2001), Janiszewski v Behrmann, 345 Mich 8, 32 ; 75 NW2d 77 (1956).

2017Tillman, 277 Mich App at 49 , citing Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co, 245 Mich App 156, 158 ; 626 NW2d 917 (2001), Janiszewski v Behrmann, 345 Mich 8, 32 ; 75 NW2d 77 (1956).

2017Tillman, 277 Mich App at 49 , citing Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co, 245 Mich App 156, 158 ; 626 NW2d 917 (2001), Janiszewski v Behrmann, 345 Mich 8, 32 ; 75 NW2d 77 (1956).

2017Tillman, 277 Mich App at 49 , citing Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co, 245 Mich App 156, 158 ; 626 NW2d 917 (2001), Janiszewski v Behrmann, 345 Mich 8, 32 ; 75 NW2d 77 (1956).

2017In determining whether a meritorious defense was established, a court should consider whether the affidavit of meritorious defense contains evidence that: (1) the plaintiff cannot prove or defendant can disprove an element of the claim or a statutory requirement; (2) a ground for summary disposition exists under MCR 2.116(C)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7) or (8); or (3) the plaintiff’s claim rests on evidence that is inadmissible. [Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213, 239 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008).] Defendant established a meritorious defense to at least one of the claims in the complaint—i.e. the

2017In determining whether a meritorious defense was established, a court should consider whether the affidavit of meritorious defense contains evidence that: (1) the plaintiff cannot prove or defendant can disprove an element of the claim or a statutory requirement; (2) a ground for summary disposition exists under MCR 2.116(C)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7) or (8); or (3) the plaintiff’s claim rests on evidence that is inadmissible. [Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213, 239 ; 760 NW2d 674 (2008).] Defendant established a meritorious defense to at least one of the claims in the complaint—i.e. the

2017Because defendant established a meritorious defense to the conversion claim, “a lesser showing of ‘good cause’” was required in order to “prevent a manifest injustice.” Alken-Ziegler, 461 Mich at 230 .

2017Because defendant established a meritorious defense to the conversion claim, “a lesser showing of ‘good cause’” was required in order to “prevent a manifest injustice.” Alken-Ziegler, 461 Mich at 230 .

2004Lee v. Macomb Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 464 Mich. 726, 740 , 629 N.W.2d 900 (2001), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

2004Lee v. Macomb Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 464 Mich. 726, 740 , 629 N.W.2d 900 (2001), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

2004Lee v. Macomb Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 464 Mich. 726, 740 , 629 N.W.2d 900 (2001), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

2004Lee v. Macomb Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 464 Mich. 726, 740 , 629 N.W.2d 900 (2001), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

1958Bowen v. Lansing, 129 Mich 117 (57 LRA 643, 95 Am St Rep 427); Detroit Trust Co. v. Baker, 230 Mich 551 .” In a number of other cases the Court has held the interest of a vendor in a land contract to be personalty.

1929Bowen v. Lan *471 sing, 129 Mich. 117 (57 L.

2026“It is axiomatic that we will not reverse when the probate court has reached the right result, even if it has done so for the wrong reasons.” In re Estate of Stan, 301 Mich App 435, 448 ; 839 NW2d 498 (2013).

2026“It is axiomatic that we will not reverse when the probate court has reached the right result, even if it has done so for the wrong reasons.” In re Estate of Stan, 301 Mich App 435, 448 ; 839 NW2d 498 (2013).

2025See MCL 600.2919a(2); Dep’t of Agriculture v Appletree Marketing, LLC, 485 Mich 1, 9-10 ; 779 NW2d 237 (2010).

2025See MCL 600.2919a(2); Dep’t of Agriculture v Appletree Marketing, LLC, 485 Mich 1, 9-10 ; 779 NW2d 237 (2010).

2024Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court opined from the bench: I’ve reviewed the [Jack] Loeks [Theatres, Inc v City of Kentwood, 189 Mich App 603 ; 474 NW2d 140 (1991), vacated in part on other grounds 439 Mich 968 (1992)] case.

2024Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court opined from the bench: I’ve reviewed the [Jack] Loeks [Theatres, Inc v City of Kentwood, 189 Mich App 603 ; 474 NW2d 140 (1991), vacated in part on other grounds 439 Mich 968 (1992)] case.

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2023Id.

2023Id.

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2023Livonia, 276 Mich App at 519 (“If a defendant personally misappropriates funds after they are received by the corporation, he or she can be held personally responsible under the MBTFA.”) (citing Brown, 239 Mich App at 743 - 744). -9- STATUTORY CONVERSION Turning to the conversion claim, MCL 600.2919a provides as follows: (1) A person damaged as a result of either or both of the following may recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees: (a) Another person’s stealing or embezzling property or converting property to the other person’s own use. (

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2023In Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, 489 Mich 157, 170 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011) (citations omitted), our Supreme Court recognized that “a separate and distinct duty to support a cause of action in tort can arise by statute . . . .” In evaluating whether a statute creates a particular duty with respect to a specific party, courts typically consider two questions: “(1) did the Legislature intend that the statute would prevent the type of injury and harm actually suffered by the party; and (2) did the Legislature intend that the party was within the class of persons protected by the statute

2023In Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, 489 Mich 157, 170 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011) (citations omitted), our Supreme Court recognized that “a separate and distinct duty to support a cause of action in tort can arise by statute . . . .” In evaluating whether a statute creates a particular duty with respect to a specific party, courts typically consider two questions: “(1) did the Legislature intend that the statute would prevent the type of injury and harm actually suffered by the party; and (2) did the Legislature intend that the party was within the class of persons protected by the statute

2023If the conversion statute was intended to protect plaintiffs from the conduct alleged in Count V, MCL 600.2919a imposed a legal duty on Carol not 5 Our Court has applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain- error, see, e.g., Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 483 , 483 n 26; 536 NW2d 760 (1995); Mr Sunshine v Delta College of Trustees, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358042); slip op at 2; Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of M

2020See, e.g., Lawsuit Financial, LLC v Curry, 261 Mich App 579, 592 ; 683 NW2d 233 (2004) (affirming summary disposition on conversion claims pursuant to common law and MCL 600.2919a).

2020Thus, here, like in Mathers, while Baker “has ostensibly parted with any interest in the assets,” she “has not parted with an interest in an adjudication of liability to another individual.” Id. -7- “[U]nless [Baker’s] liability has already been determined in a proceeding that afforded the transferor a meaningful opportunity to defend, the transferor’s ‘presence in the action is essential to permit the court to render complete relief . . . .’ ” Id. at 259-260 , quoting MCR 2.205(A).

2020Thus, here, like in Mathers, while Baker “has ostensibly parted with any interest in the assets,” she “has not parted with an interest in an adjudication of liability to another individual.” Id. -7- “[U]nless [Baker’s] liability has already been determined in a proceeding that afforded the transferor a meaningful opportunity to defend, the transferor’s ‘presence in the action is essential to permit the court to render complete relief . . . .’ ” Id. at 259-260 , quoting MCR 2.205(A).

2019Asserting alleged contract rights does not constitute an ultra vires activity nor is it “the intentional use or misuse of a badge of governmental authority for a purpose unauthorized by law . . . .” Id. at 611 .

2019Fourth, while I agree with much of the majority’s thorough discussion of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution, I disagree with its conclusion that a claim for unjust enrichment is not governed by the contract/tort civil-wrong dichotomy of Bradley Estate. “[A] ‘central purpose’ of governmental immunity is ‘to prevent a drain on the state’s financial resources, by avoiding even the expense of having to contest on the merits any claim barred by governmental immunity.’ ” Costa v Community Emergency Med Servs, Inc, 475 Mich 403, 410 ; 716 NW2d 236 (2006), quoting Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 18

2019Fourth, while I agree with much of the majority’s thorough discussion of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution, I disagree with its conclusion that a claim for unjust enrichment is not governed by the contract/tort civil-wrong dichotomy of Bradley Estate. “[A] ‘central purpose’ of governmental immunity is ‘to prevent a drain on the state’s financial resources, by avoiding even the expense of having to contest on the merits any claim barred by governmental immunity.’ ” Costa v Community Emergency Med Servs, Inc, 475 Mich 403, 410 ; 716 NW2d 236 (2006), quoting Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 18

2019Fourth, while I agree with much of the majority’s thorough discussion of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution, I disagree with its conclusion that a claim for unjust enrichment is not governed by the contract/tort civil-wrong dichotomy of Bradley Estate. “[A] ‘central purpose’ of governmental immunity is ‘to prevent a drain on the state’s financial resources, by avoiding even the expense of having to contest on the merits any claim barred by governmental immunity.’ ” Costa v Community Emergency Med Servs, Inc, 475 Mich 403, 410 ; 716 NW2d 236 (2006), quoting Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 18

2019Fourth, while I agree with much of the majority’s thorough discussion of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution, I disagree with its conclusion that a claim for unjust enrichment is not governed by the contract/tort civil-wrong dichotomy of Bradley Estate. “[A] ‘central purpose’ of governmental immunity is ‘to prevent a drain on the state’s financial resources, by avoiding even the expense of having to contest on the merits any claim barred by governmental immunity.’ ” Costa v Community Emergency Med Servs, Inc, 475 Mich 403, 410 ; 716 NW2d 236 (2006), quoting Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 18

2016Contrary to ASIC’s claims on appeal, we conclude that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, 402 Mich 125 , is dispositive of this issue, and that ASIC’s claims regarding its liability for common-law conversion have no merit.

2016Odom, 482 Mich at 480 .