Real property dispute; Real party in interest; Timeliness of a summary disposition motion; Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary disposition because defendants did not respond to its request to admit; Motion for reconsideration

In this dispute over real property, in Docket No. 354254 the court held that the trial court did not err by concluding that plaintiff-Dubois Street Church was not the real party in interest, and affirmed the dismissal of its complaint. In Docket No. 355895, it vacated the part of the trial court’s order requiring plaintiff to vacate the properties at issue, affirmed in all other respects, and remanded. Plaintiff claimed that defendants sold property belonging to it “without plaintiff’s authorization or consent.” It sought relief under conversion and quiet title theories. Defendants sought “dismissal on the basis that plaintiff was comprised of imposters who were former members of the actual Dubois Street Church that left to form a different church in 2017.” The trial court held, based on the documentary evidence, “that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, but was instead comprised of former members of the Dubois Street Church that had joined an affiliated, but legally distinct church.” Through documentary evidence, defendants showed that “the Dubois Street Church was formed in 1975, and continued to exist throughout the lower court proceedings.” They also showed that “the filings with the State of Michigan listed defendants as the officers, directors, and resident agent of the Dubois Street Church. These official documents were not controverted or disputed by plaintiff, other than through conclusory allegations that” they were improperly filed with the State. Defendants also presented evidence that “the individuals claiming to represent plaintiff were former members of the Dubois Street Church that left to start a new church. . . .” Plaintiff did not dispute the authenticity of social media posts indicating this, but insisted that it was the real party in interest, relying on affidavits of people who claimed to be current trustees of the Dubois Street Church. However, these affidavits did “not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff is the real party in interest in that they only set forth the assertion that defendants were not entitled to sell the properties under the bylaws.” There were no facts in them that “would have provided the trial court with any ability to conclude plaintiff was, in fact, the real party in interest.” The trial court did not err when it held that, “on the basis of the evidence presented to it, plaintiff was not the real party in interest.”