Claims for damages & declaratory relief under the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA), Article 9 of the Michigan Occupational Code (MOC), & the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA); Independent action under MCR 2.612(C)(3) to set aside a default judgment; Waiver; Asset Acceptance, LLC (AAL)

Concluding plaintiff-Brackens “waived any claim for an evidentiary hearing or trial on his independent-action count to set aside” a default judgment previously entered against him, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-AAL on that count. It also upheld summary disposition for AAL on his claims under the MRCPA, MOC, and MCPA. AAL obtained the default judgment against plaintiff after it purchased a credit card account. The court noted “the trial court was prepared to ignore any res judicata or collateral estoppel argument posed by AAL, was prepared to disregard AAL’s argument that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the independent-action count under MCR 2.612(C)(3), and was prepared to give Brackens an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the process of service and effectively resolve the independent-action count.” But he did not take any steps to pursue its “offer of an evidentiary hearing. None. Perhaps Brackens declined to do so on the belief that the trial court would grant him summary disposition on the independent-action count under MCR 2.116(I)(2), but, if true, it was a decision with consequences. Even as late as the second summary disposition hearing . . . the trial court expressed that it would still consider conducting an evidentiary hearing if requested, and counsel for Brackens remained silent.” Thus, the court let stand the ruling granting AAL summary disposition of the independent-action count. As to his MOC claim, the record showed “AAL was not acting as a ‘collection agency’ in seeking payment from Brackens; rather, AAL was engaged in collecting or attempting to collect a claim owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to AAL itself.” Further, he acknowledged that it was “not ‘licensed’ as a collection agency.” Thus, his MOC claim failed as a matter of law. The court also found he did not have a valid claim under the MRCPA, noting among other things that absent “an allegation that MRCPA liability arose because AAL was a ‘regulated person,’ [he] failed to state a cause of action for alleged violations of MCL 445.252.” Finally, the trial court dismissed his MCPA claim based on the exception in MCL 445.904(1)(a) and Brackens effectively did “not challenge this reasoning on appeal.”