Res judicata; Adair v. Michigan; Allen v. McCurry; Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co.; Dart v. Dart; Requirement that prior action was decided on the merits; Baraga Cnty. v. State Tax Comm’n; Limbach v. Oakland Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs; Same parties or their privies; Abandoned issue; Cheesman v. Williams; Whether the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first; The “transactional” test; Washington v. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Detroit

Holding that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to defendants- Kristopher and Natalie Tenharmsel (the Tenharmsels) and Holland on the basis of res judicata, the court affirmed. Plaintiffs-Kings own a group of storage units and this case arose out of an explosion that occurred at one of the units. In an earlier action, nonparty-Fritz filed a complaint against the Kings, Kristopher Tenharmsel, and Holland for injuries he sustained from the explosion (the Fritz case). “The Fritz case eventually resulted in stipulated dismissals with prejudice for all parties; those dismissals form the basis for the” res judicata issue on appeal. As to the first requirement of res judicata, the Kings argued that “there was not an adjudication on the merits in the Fritz case because the trial court did not rule on any motions or make any findings before that case was dismissed.” But Limbach “clearly establishes that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Thus, the trial court was not required to rule on any motions or to make any findings, or in fact take any type of action for” res judicata to apply here. “The claims in the Fritz case were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. As such, and without more, they acted as adjudications on the merits for res judicata purposes.” As to the second requirement, the Kings failed to make any argument as to the party or privity requirement of res judicata, and their overall argument was indecipherable. As such, the issue was abandoned. As to the third requirement, their claims “could have been decided in the Fritz lawsuit, and” thus, were barred by res judicata. The explosion that gave rise to the cause of action in the Fritz case was identical to the one relied on as a basis for this case. The facts that support both claims were “related in time, space, and origin because they are the results of the same occurrence.” Both claims were “rooted in the facts surrounding the refilling of the propane tank, the resulting explosion, and the associated damages.” Thus, the Kings’ claims could have been decided in the Fritz case. All three requirements for res judicata were met and the trial court correctly granted summary disposition to Holland and the Tenharmsels. Finally, the court also noted another facet of the Kings’ argument: that res judicata should not apply because they were not required to file a cross claim in the Fritz case. This argument lacked support. While they contended that “not pursuing the cross claims in the Fritz case promoted efficiency and limited confusion, allowing their separate action to proceed would have the opposite result. By bringing claims that could have been brought as cross claims in the Fritz case as a separate action, the Kings created an unnecessary second case.” Their claims “could, with reasonable diligence, have been brought in the first” case.