Statutory conversion; Treble damages; MCL 600.2919a(1)(a); Claim that an attorney’s lien was converted

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed Part II(A) of the Court of Appeals’ opinion (see e-Journal # 74173 in the 11/23/20 edition) as to statutory conversion, vacated Part II(B) as to treble damages, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiff asserted that defendant-appellant “committed conversion by selling the real property on which plaintiff had an attorney’s lien without providing plaintiff her share of the proceeds.” Given that real property cannot be converted, plaintiff contended that defendant converted her attorney’s lien. However, the court concluded that while it may in some circumstances be possible to convert a lien, the lien here was not converted. “First, defendant’s actions were taken in regard to the real property and the proceeds, but not the lien or any document memorializing the lien. In this case, the lien was not property that was converted; the lien only acted as the basis for plaintiff’s interest in the real property. Second, to hold that plaintiff’s conversion claim succeeds in these circumstances, in which the property is sold and the effect on the lien is incidental to that sale, would create a loophole to the general rule that real property is not subject to conversion—actions taken with regard to the real property would be conversion if they had even an incidental effect on the lien.” As to plaintiff’s alternative argument that defendant converted the sale proceeds, while real-estate sale proceeds are personal property and can be converted, there are specific requirements as to when money can be converted. Plaintiff’s claim “did not relate to any specific monies. The lien was never recorded against the Escanaba property for a specific monetary value and thus was never made a formal encumbrance requiring resolution prior to closing. Plaintiff also did not claim that she was entitled to the specific money that the purchaser used to buy” it; she simply asserted “defendant should have given plaintiff her share of the proceeds as per the lien. Therefore, because neither the proceeds nor the lien were converted in this case, and because real property cannot be the subject of conversion,” the conversion claim failed. Given this, “the Court of Appeals did not need to reach the treble-damages issue.” The court denied leave to appeal in all other respects because it was not persuaded that it should review the remaining question presented.