Accord & satisfaction; Replevin; MCR 3.105(C); Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)

In this replevin case, the court held that the trial court did not err under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10) when it denied defendant-Oneal’s motion for summary disposition and granted plaintiff-US Bank summary disposition. The court found “US Bank properly pleaded a replevin claim under MCL 600.2920 and MCR 3.105.” It noted that the “complaint (1) described the Cadillac that Oneal possessed by providing the [VIN]; (2) provided the estimated trade-in value of the Cadillac; (3) explained the property in question was a vehicle capable of being possessed; and (4) demonstrated that Oneal defaulted on a loan with US Bank, which had the right to repossess the Cadillac if [she] defaulted. US Bank also explained that, to the best of its knowledge, the Cadillac had not been taken for tax or fines or seized under an execution or attachment against the property of Oneal.” Thus, it properly pled a replevin claim. In her answer to the complaint, she “denied the allegations but failed to provide any defenses against them. The only time that Oneal raised the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was in her motion for summary disposition.” But her summary disposition motion was “not a pleading.” As a result, “the trial court did not err under MCR 2.116(C)(9) when it granted US Bank’s motion for summary disposition.” The bank also moved for summary disposition under (C)(10), “arguing that there was no dispute that it was entitled to recover the Cadillac from Oneal.” US Bank claimed “there was no dispute of material fact that Oneal owed about $57,000 under the contractual agreement. [It] provided the loan agreement, which detailed: (a) the amount financed, which was $56,354.24; (b) the monthly payment schedule; and (c) Oneal’s signature along with the ‘dun alluju’ addition. The agreement also indicated that repossession was a remedy in the event of a breach. In addition,” a bank officer “submitted an affidavit stating that Oneal defaulted on the agreement and that US Bank had the right to recover the Cadillac.” Oneal contended “that the only dispute was whether she had liability under the agreement.” The court concluded that even if she “had not waived her argument of accord and satisfaction, she failed to establish the requirements.” The court noted that “Oneal provided evidence of two money orders for $2 each that she sent to US Bank, on which she wrote her intent that those payments be accepted by US Bank as the ‘complete amount’ of her debt. However, as the trial court noted, ‘writing something with English letters, but in another language’ did not establish Oneal’s good faith, but rather was a ‘crafty way to sign agreements with people’ that demonstrated Oneal had ‘no intention at all of paying anything.’ Moreover, [she] failed to present evidence contesting the loan agreement or her default. As such, the debt was not subject to a bona fide dispute[.]” Affirmed.