Dispute over sales commission & certain charges arising from repairs & storage costs for an aircraft; Common-law & statutory conversion; Right to possession; Claim & delivery; MCR 3.105(A)(1) & (2); MCL 600.2920(1)(c); Negligence; Fultz v Union-Commerce Ass’n; Bailment; Goldman v Phantom Freight, Inc; Certainty as to damages; Breach of fiduciary duty; Highfield Beach at Lake MI v Sanderson; Registration of an aircraft under federal law; Judicial bias; Cain v Department of Corrs; Credibility; Discovery sanctions; Dean v Tucker; Default or dismissal as a sanction

The court held that the trial court did not err by (1) dismissing plaintiffs-Salinger’s and his aviation companies’ claims for conversion and claim and delivery, (2) finding their claims for damages related to defendant-aircraft storage and repair company’s (Contact) purported negligence arising out of their bailment relationship were speculative and unrecoverable, or (3) dismissing their breach of fiduciary duty claim against defendant-aircraft brokerage company (Raptor) on the basis plaintiffs failed to present evidence of Raptor’s alleged breach. It also rejected plaintiffs’ claim of judicial bias, and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing defendants’ counterclaim as a discovery sanction. Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging a variety of claims related to Salinger’s purchase, repair, and storage of a Falcon 50 aircraft. The court first found that the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for common-law and statutory conversion and claim and delivery, finding they “failed to provide a factual basis for their claims that the Falcon’s avionics were removed, seized, or swapped out.” As to their claims for damages related to Contact’s purported negligence involving its temporary possession of the Falcon, the court was unable to find “that the trial court erred in concluding that Contact was not negligent for failing to maintain the Falcon’s engines pursuant to an agreement that the trial court found did not exist.” In addition, there was no clear error in the “finding that plaintiffs failed to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that they sustained damages.” The court further found that while “a broker-client fiduciary relationship existed between Raptor and plaintiffs,” the evidence they presented at trial “that Raptor advised them that [Salinger’s company] could register the Falcon in the United States was found to be not credible.” The court next rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the judge presiding over the trial “exhibited a sarcastic and condescending tone toward Salinger during the course of the trial, which established ‘concrete evidence’ of judicial bias.” The trial court’s ground “for dismissing plaintiffs’ claims was directly related to the fact that plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims with anything more than Salinger’s testimony, which [it] found not credible.” Finally, as to the trial court’s dismissal of defendants’ counterclaim for failure to comply with its order compelling discovery, the record showed “the trial court carefully considered all the factors and the options before concluding that dismissal was just and proper.” Affirmed.