Dispute arising out of a failed business relationship; Laches & claims at law; MCL 600.5815; Knight v. Northpointe Bank; Thompson v. Doore; Lowry v. Lyle; Wehrman v. Conklin; Alger v. Davis; Head v. Benjamin Rich Realty Co.; Rose v. National Auction Group; Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co.; Tenneco, Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co.; Eberhard v. Harper-Grace Hosps.; Binding precedent; MCR 7.215(C)(2); Defamation; Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Rests.; Whether a statement is actionable; Ireland v. Edwards; Principle that a statement of fact that another person has committed a particular crime or engaged in illegal conduct is defamatory per se; Kevorkian v. American Med. Ass’n; Unjust enrichment; Moll v. Wayne Cnty.; Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. City of Detroit; Suit on a promissory note; Consideration; Klimmer v. Klimmer; In re Booth’s Estate; General Motors Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Revenue Div.; Sanctions for filing “frivolous” claims; MCL 600.2591 & MCR 2.114; Kitchen v. Kitchen; Bias; In re Contempt of Henry

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the trial court erred when it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and found them frivolous. It also held that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition for the defendants-inn owners (Arthur and Maureen Jeannot and Eden Brook, LLC [EB]) on one of its counter-claims for breach of a promissory note. Thus, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging defamation, unjust enrichment, and conversion after their business relationship failed and plaintiff was let go. EB countersued alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on plaintiff’s failure to pay on two promissory notes. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims and granted judgment for EB on the two promissory notes. It also ordered plaintiff and his lawyer to pay defendants $18,423.38 in attorney fees as a sanction for filing frivolous claims. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of laches to bar his claims for conversion and claim and delivery of his personal property. “Because the Jeannots and [EB] failed to present any evidence to identify the items at issue and demonstrate that [plaintiff’s] failure to earlier assert his rights in the property prejudiced their ability to defend against [his] claims for conversion and claim and delivery, the trial court should have denied their motion for summary disposition premised on laches.” The court also agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in finding that his claim for defamation failed as a matter of law. “Because [Arthur] Jeannot did not present evidence that he did not make the statements” and the statements were either defamatory per se “or capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, the trial court should have denied [his] motion for summary disposition.” It further agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by dismissing his claim for unjust enrichment. “Because there is a factual dispute” as to whether EB and the Jeannots “were unjustly enriched at [plaintiff’s] expense, the trial court erred when it dismissed” the claim. In addition, the court partially agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for EB on its claims that he breached his agreement to repay two promissory notes, finding the evidence of consideration strong on one of the notes, but lacking on the other. Finally, the court found there was no judicial bias, but that the trial court erred by finding plaintiff’s claims frivolous and ordering sanctions.