Foreclosure under Michigan’s Construction Lien Act (CLA); Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2); Timeliness of a claim of lien; MCL 570.1111(1); “Improvement”; MCL 570.1104(6); Stock Bldg Supply, LLC v Parsley Homes of Mazuchet Harbor, LLC; Motion for attorney fees as a sanction for “frivolous” litigation

Holding that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff-Quantum’s “claim asserting the right to foreclose its construction lien because Quantum failed to present evidence that it had a valid lien under the CLA[,]” the court affirmed the judgment against defendants for $24,179.35 in unpaid construction expenses. The court noted it had interpreted the proper meaning of MCL 570.1111(1) in Stock, where it had to determine whether a “plumber’s return visit to repair the leaks constituted the furnishing of labor or material for the improvement.” Here, in support of its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2), defendant-Plaza de Kaza cited Quantum’s owner’s “own testimony and Quantum’s invoices to show that Quantum completed its work by” 11/6/18, and simply “tore out and replaced a portion of the traffic circle after” the sole member of Plaza de Kaza “complained that the work was defective.” The court concluded that on “the evidence then before the trial court, there was no dispute that the work Quantum performed after [11/6/18], was to correct a defect in the curbing and gutters’ original placement. Because there was no dispute about the reason for the work performed after [11/6/18], the trial court did not err when it concluded that—as a matter of law—the last date of furnishing labor or materials for the improvement was on or before” 11/6/18. Further, the court held that “because the undisputed evidence showed that Quantum failed to file its claim of lien until more than 90 days after [11/6/18], it was also undisputed that Quantum did not have a valid lien to foreclose.” Thus, the court concluded the “trial court did not err when it denied Quantum’s motion for summary disposition of its foreclosure claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and instead dismissed that claim under MCR 2.116(I)(2).” Also, Quantum did not show “that the trial court clearly erred when it found that Plaza de Kaza and [defendant-]Dykstra did not assert frivolous defenses or counterclaims.”