Claim for foreclosure of a construction lien; The Construction Lien Act; MCL 570.1107(1) & (2); MCL 570.1118(1); Suing deceased people; Alternate service; Breach of contract; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Amount in controversy; Unjust enrichment; Sheehan’s on the Green, Inc. (SOTG)

The court held that plaintiff-Core could not state a claim for foreclosure of a construction lien against defendants-Larry and Joan Sheehan (referred to as the parents) even if they were still alive. The trial court also properly dismissed Core’s claim against defendants-SOTG and Daniel Sheehan (referred to as the son) for breach of contract under MCR 2.116(C)(4) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the amount in controversy. Finally, Core’s unjust enrichment claims were also properly dismissed – under MCR 2.116(C)(8) as to the parents and under MCR 2.116(C)(4) as to the son and SOTG. Core recorded the construction lien against property owned by the parents, “who died years before the signing of a contract for improvement of the property. That contract” was signed by Core and the son, who signed on behalf of SOTG. Core later recorded a construction lien on the property and filed this suit. The court concluded “the trial court correctly identified defects in each of Core’s three claims[.]” As to the first claim, Core only asked for foreclosure against the parents. As “a construction lien attaches to the ‘interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement, including any subsequently acquired legal or equitable interest,’ MCL 570.1107(2), and the parents did not contract for the improvement that Core performed, Core could not state a claim against” them even if they were still living. Further, its “attempt to seek foreclosure of the construction lien against the parents runs afoul of the settled principle that deceased people generally cannot be sued in their individual capacity.” The court found “no merit in Core’s view that the trial court should have permitted the clerk’s entries of default against the parents to stand.” It noted that “Core filed a motion for alternate service upon individuals whom it knew were dead, and it made no effort to amend its complaint to name” their estates instead. As to the breach of contract claim, it sought “‘a judgment against SOTG and [the son] in the amount of $6,775.00’” plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Thus, the claim fell under the jurisdiction of the district court, not the trial court. And this claim against SOTG and the son could not come within the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction “to address the construction-lien claim against the parents.” Affirmed.