Dispute over the joint purchase of a house; Res judicata; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; The transactional test; Washington v Sinai Hosp of Greater Detroit; Whether a factual grouping constitutes a transaction; Adair v Michigan; Amendment of affirmative defenses; MCR 2.118(A)(2); Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine; The trial court’s discretion; Wolfenbarger v Wright; Effect of delay; Weymers v Khera; Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Statutory conversion; MCL 600.2919a; Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding defendants’ lawsuit was barred by res judicata or by denying their motion to amend their affirmative defenses in plaintiff’s lawsuit against them, but did err by failing to grant their motion for JNOV of her statutory conversion claim. The parties, who are related, purchased a house together, but their relationship eventually broke down. Plaintiff then sued defendants alleging a variety of claims. Defendants followed by suing plaintiff, making similar claims. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff following a jury award of $200,000 for statutory conversion, and dismissed defendants’ claims, finding they were barred by res judicata. On appeal, the court first found defendants’ lawsuit was barred by res judicata, noting that “the claims in both cases arose from the same transactions,” and defendants “could have raised their claims during the prior lawsuit if they had exercises due diligence.” Further, given “the record in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying” defendants’ motion to amend their affirmative defenses. However, the court agreed with defendants that the trial court should have granted their motion for JNOV because the jury verdict was contrary to law. Because plaintiff “did not establish that there was a duty separate and distinct from the duty arising from the alleged oral contract, an essential element of her” statutory conversion claim was unproven.