Calculation of damages in a breach of contract action; Doe v Henry Ford Health Sys; Common law conversion; Department of Agric v Appletree Mktg, LLC; Embezzlement; Damages for embezzlement or conversion; MCL 600.2919a; Shareholder oppression; MCL 450.1489(1); Double recovery; Principle that the Revised Judicature Act (RJA) does not preclude other remedies; MCL 600.2919a(2); MCL 450.1489(1)(f); Requirements for defendant’s brief on appeal; MCR 7.212(C)(6)

The court held that the trial court did not err in its calculation of damages or issue an improper double recovery. Plaintiff-Atto sued defendant on behalf of himself and the corporate entity in this case (Soo Hotels), raising claims of embezzlement, statutory and common-law conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and shareholder oppression. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and Soo Hotels. As an initial matter, the court noted that defendant’s brief on appeal did not comply with the court rules as it “identified the witnesses that testified at trial and did not summarize their testimony or cite to the transcripts.” Turning to the merits, it rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in its calculation of damages and improperly issued a double recovery for a single injury. “The trial court’s calculation of damages was within the range of the evidence presented, and [it] was aware of the issues involved and correctly applied the law.” In addition, despite “defendant’s acknowledgment and claimed entitlement to taking nearly $800,000, the trial court simply held him to this testimony as an admission, but reduced the damage award to $676,412.45 before imposing treble damages.” Further, it “was not required to address every line-item requested by plaintiff or claimed deduction by defendant.” Moreover, in “light of the evidence that Soo Hotels was merely a management operation and would not derive a benefit from improvements to the building,” it did not err by “failing to offset $170,000 purportedly made by defendant.” Finally, the court rejected his claim that the trial court improperly awarded a double recovery for a single injury, noting the issue was waived, and, in any event, recovery under the RJA “does not preclude other remedies.” Affirmed.