Alleged violation of the anti-lockout statute (MCL 600.2918); Conversion; Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co; Applicable limitations periods; Accrual

Holding that plaintiff-Carpenter’s claims for violation of the anti-lockout statute and conversion of his personal property were time-barred, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-landlord (Cedar Springs). The dispute between the parties began as a landlord-tenant matter in district court, related to a mobile home. “Cedar Springs obtained an order for eviction against Carpenter” in 2012. Since then, he has filed several “actions against various parties, including several against Cedar Springs.” He filed this lawsuit in 2022. The trial court granted Cedar Springs summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (7). As to his claim “that Cedar Springs wrongfully locked him out of his mobile home in violation of MCL 600.2918[,]” the court noted that a claim for damages for violating this “statute ‘must be commenced within 1 year after the time the cause of action arises.’” It further noted that a “claim accrues when the wrong upon which the claim is based is done, not when damage results.” A 4/13 police report filed by Carpenter showed that “he reported that Cedar Springs placed a padlock on the mobile home.” Thus, the court concluded his “claim accrued, at the latest, in [4/13].” As a result, the present action was filed after the applicable limitations period expired. As to his conversion claim, he asserted “Cedar Springs illegally rented his mobile home out to occupants. He further alleges that he was granted possession of the mobile home in [12/13] and was granted judgments against the former occupants of the mobile home in 2014. Cedar Springs obtained title to the mobile home on [8/26/14]. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Carpenter, his conversion claim accrued in 2013, or 2014 at the latest.” Thus, this action was filed well after the applicable three-year limitations period expired.